On Oct 1, 2014 11:40 AM, "Brad Jorsch (Anomie)" bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 1, 2014 10:55 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
This is something that has to be discussed *on the projects
themselves*,
not on mailing lists that have (comparatively) very low participation
by
active editors.
Unless people want to trial on mw.org (assuming there is dev buy in, not sure we are there yet)
Does mw.org receive the level of vandalism and other unhelpful edits
(where
people would like to use Tor to avoid IP blocking in making those edits) that it would make for a useful test?
If we are testing something potentially very disruptive, no harm starting small. At the very least it would show if we could enable tor on mw.org. The results could help decide if further testing on more "real" wikis is justified.
There also needs to be a good answer to the "attribution problem"
that
has
long been identified as a secondary concern related to Tor and other
proxy
systems. The absence of a good answer to this issue may be
sufficient in
itself to derail any proposed trial.
Which problem is that?
If I understand it correctly, right now we attribute edits made without an account to the IP address. Allowing edits via Tor should probably not be attributing such edits to the exit node's IP.
This quite frankly seems like a contrived problem. A random (normal) ip address hardly associates an edit to a person unless you steal an isps records. Wait a year and it would probably be impossible to figure out who owned some random dynamic ip address no matter how hard you tried. I dont think attributing edits to an exit node introduces any new attribution issues that are not already present.
--bawolff