This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high.
However, we might consider doing what the freenode IRC network does. Freenode requires SASL authentication to connect on Tor, which basically means only users with registered accounts can use it. The main reason for hardblocking and not allowing registered accounts on-wiki via Tor is that CheckUsers need useful IP data. But it might be feasible if we just force all account creation to happen on "real" IPs, although that still hides some data from CheckUsers.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Does Jake have any mechanism in mind to prevent abuse? Is there any possible mechanism available to prevent abuse?
"Preventing" abuse is the wrong goal. There is plenty of abuse even with all the privacy smashing new editor deterring convolutions that we can think up. Abuse is part of the cost of doing business of operating a publicly editable Wiki, it's a cost which is normally well worth its benefits.
The goal needs to merely be to limit the abuse enough so as not to upset the abuse vs benefit equation. Today, people abuse, they get blocked, they go to another library/coffee shop/find another proxy/wash rinse repeat. We can't do any better than that model, and it turns out that it's okay. If a solution for tor users results in a cost "cost" (time, money, whatever unit of payment is being expended) for repeated abuse comparable to the other ways abusive people access the site then it should not be a major source of trouble which outweighs the benefits. (Even if you do not value freedom of expression and association for people in less free parts of the world at all).
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l