Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Personally I just started using Tor. So CheckUser doesn't affect me any more. As an added bonus I don't have to worry about Google tracking me either. Fortunately, most Tor exit nodes aren't currently blocked, though. If this changes, this workaround might go away. Hopefully the other policy, to allow (at least some) logged in users to edit through blocked proxies, will pass by then.
Having just spent a couple of evenings dealing with a Tor-using vandal, I would personally immediately suspect any account using Tor of sock-puppetry simply due to guilt by association. Secrecy and anonymity are laudable, but since their primary visible use is to engage in unethical and/or illegal behavior vis-a-vis Wikimedia projects they are immediately deserving of suspicion.
For the same reason Wiki projects do not allow "public" accounts, there is no reason to use anonymizing techniques when editing. You may instantly and anonymously receive an account. Your IP will not be examined except in unusual circumstances, and then will be handled under a stringent privacy policy which protects your information even in the case of wrong doing. For these reasons, I would personally be in favour of blocking access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
Amgine
On 11/2/05, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
For the same reason Wiki projects do not allow "public" accounts, there is no reason to use anonymizing techniques when editing. You may instantly and anonymously receive an account. Your IP will not be examined except in unusual circumstances, and then will be handled under a stringent privacy policy which protects your information even in the case of wrong doing. For these reasons, I would personally be in favour of blocking access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
I would say that more important than trying to identify each user's IP and disallowing anonymity -- which strikes me as the wrong way to go -- would be asking users (presumed anonymous) to verify their goodwill and interest in the projects by working in a sandboxed area, or submitting time-delayed changes, until they had demonstrated a reasonable threshhold of good faith; at which point they could vandalize and be quickly blocked, having spent much more time getting to that point than the vandal-fighters did blocking them.
Anonymity serves useful purposes; we should try to preserve those while promoting the productive development of the projects.
To be mergist about these ideas... one could offer users both options. 1) edit under a privacy policy which disallows anonymity, or 2) edit anonymously, first passing through a sandbox stage to demonstrate that you are not a bot and are acting in good faith.
+ SJ +
On 11/2/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
To be mergist about these ideas... one could offer users both options.
- edit under a privacy policy which disallows anonymity, or
- edit anonymously, first passing through a sandbox stage to
demonstrate that you are not a bot and are acting in good faith.
- SJ +
I think you're missing the main reason I use Tor. In fact, for the most part it has nothing to do with editing. I want to be anonymous when I *read* Wikipedia. I also don't want my IP address tied to my identity, but that's probably unavoidable. To constantly log in and out and switch proxies all the time would be too much work. Also, I've noticed that MediaWiki doesn't clear all the cookies when you log out anyway. I'd suggest a much different approach: 1) The ability to send login information only when editing, and not when merely reading. This could be easily accomplished by simply allowing Wikipedia to be read through a different domain name, where the cookies wouldn't be sent. and 2) The ability for at least some subset of logged in users to edit logged in through any IP address. Possibly some other means could be used to ensure that these users are not gaming the system. For instance, I'd be willing to donate $5 to the organization to create such an account.
- The ability to send login information only when editing, and not when
merely reading. This could be easily accomplished by simply allowing Wikipedia to be read through a different domain name, where the cookies wouldn't be sent.
On second thought, the domain name trick probably wouldn't work. So instead maybe the ability to enter one's username and password directly on the edit page. This wouldn't log you in, it'd just associate that edit with your username.
On 11/2/05, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Personally I just started using Tor. So CheckUser doesn't affect me any more. As an added bonus I don't have to worry about Google tracking me either. Fortunately, most Tor exit nodes aren't currently blocked,
though.
If this changes, this workaround might go away. Hopefully the other
policy,
to allow (at least some) logged in users to edit through blocked proxies, will pass by then.
Having just spent a couple of evenings dealing with a Tor-using vandal, I would personally immediately suspect any account using Tor of sock-puppetry simply due to guilt by association. Secrecy and anonymity are laudable, but since their primary visible use is to engage in unethical and/or illegal behavior vis-a-vis Wikimedia projects they are immediately deserving of suspicion.
For the same reason Wiki projects do not allow "public" accounts, there
is no reason to use anonymizing techniques when editing. You may instantly and anonymously receive an account. Your IP will not be examined except in unusual circumstances, and then will be handled under a stringent privacy policy which protects your information even in the case of wrong doing. For these reasons, I would personally be in favour of blocking access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
Amgine
You're confusing IP addresses and anonymity. When I edit, I use my real name. I'm not anonymous in any way. I primarily use tor to hide my IP address, not my identity. I don't care that you say that my IP won't be examined except in unusual circumstances. The simple fact that this is recorded in the first place is enough, and the lack of protections to make sure that it *cannot* be examined except in unusal circumstances combined with the fact that I am not even notified when this information is examined are enough to put it over the top. Wiki projects do not need to know my IP address, and I'm not going to provide it. If you don't want my edits under those conditions, it's your loss.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org