Nathan wrote: The paper Leslie linked to indicates that the Great Firewall operates through automated packet inspection, but its stoplist is regularly exposed in peer-to-peer applications such as TOM-Skype. We could replace its stoplist words with alternate encodings which do not match textually. There are an infinite number of ways to do this, from insertion of <span> tags, to graphical image replacement, to use of javascript which evaluates to the stoplist words, or any other of a literally countably infinite number of steganographic techniques. Most people simply capitulate to the Great Firewall. Shouldn't we be setting the example for others of showing how it's easily defeated? On these any other topics involving activism, we should be asking the community for solutions and discussing them, but the centralization of the WMF is drifting further away from that. For example, the annual plan has apparently been drafted without any community review before going to the Board this year. Last year we had regular fundraising testing updates about once per werk, but we've only had one so far this year. Who approved the tighter restrictions on who can vote in Board elections this year? Nobody has bothered to ask donors whether they would prefer to pay staff market pay rates instead of following the ”peer group” practice of huge raises for the top and uncompetitive salaries for new hires, based on an interpretation of Dan Pink's work which he and the secondary literature both firmly reject. Perhaps the elections and ED replacement will provide leadership who care more about the evidence than suffering through having to admit that they've been misguided. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:28 PM, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Sug…