ng0 at infotropique.org
Sat Nov 4 19:57:05 UTC 2017
Roger Dingledine transcribed 2.5K bytes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:58:35PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> > our plan with the bibliography collection of GNUnet is to
> > implement something similar to your/freehaven's anonbib.
> See also the censorbib, for another example.
Thanks, I'll search for it.
> > While running the build and cache update of it from
> > current git HEAD on the anonbib.cfg I noticed a number of
> > outdated and broken links.
> Yep. Many links have failed over the years. That was one of the big
> reasons to have the local cached version of each file.
> > I'm currently playing with 2 options: re-use anonbib as it is
> > and change the style + some of its content (for us at GNUnet)
> > or write something similar to it.
> > From my perspective option 1 would be the best as we could
> > work on fixing links together, keep the content up-to-date
> > and at the same time keep the duplicate efforts and work
> > down to a minimum.
> Sounds plausible to me. I think we would be excited to take patches for
> broken links -- even if the new link becomes just a link to our cached
> version, which will hopefully live forever. :)
> But for the ones that have a broken link *and* don't have a cached
> version, it would be especially awesome for somebody to track those down.
> It's not entirely clear what we ought to do with anonbib. At the
> beginning, there was no google scholar, so it really was the place to go
> to find out about papers in the anonymous communications area. And also,
> back then, there were only 10 or 15 papers and you could feasibly read
> all of them.
> Now I think anonbib needs to be something other than "all of the papers
> about the topic". One way forward would be to cull it even more, so it
> becomes more of a recommended reading list.
Christian Grothoff and myself have a different understanding of
how we would apply anonbib to our work, but essentially we would
have 2 different "flavors". Anonbib has a specific focus (I assume,
I didn't go through all the papers yet) and our paper selection
would be more focused on another topic. Christian's idea is that
we'd have two different topics hosted.
We are discussing this here right now: https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=5121
> Working together on the anonbib code: great. Just to clarify: we
> would host _our_ bibligraphy and they'd continue to host theirs,
> right? Because the focus (secure P2P vs. anonymity) is somewhat
> different, so it does make sense to have two different sites with different papers.
Now the "problem" is neither our bibliography nor yours seem to be
completely "ours" or "yours", we mix in what we picked up on the
way to where we are now. Our bibliography.git export right now
counts 1045 files.
I agree with you, to trim them down could be necessary.
For example we could concentrate on creating selected volumes
of papers and the cross-links between them, and stay within
a chosen topic.
I have no idea (at the moment) what has been collected on our
side and how many of the files are outside of a common theme,
I only did the export to git recently.
I'd rather not let people depend on Google's infrastructure
for knowledge, but it shouldn't be out job to maintain a
complete and growing library of knowledge either, so picking
a topic and cutting down to that sounds reasonable to me.
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tor-dev