Wikipedia & Tor & ... moderators?

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

Christopher W. wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:40:22 -0400 (apologies for 
the extremely late reply; I just subscribed)

 >>>>On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 08:18:11AM -0400, Christopher W. wrote:

 >>>>>>A suggestion on this: I just remembered the "hidden" servers
 >>>>>>....there was one listed on Privoxy's page, I believe, that can
 >>>>>>only be accessed by someone using a tor/Privoxy combination.
 >>>>>>Perhaps our possible Chinese dissident could post her/his edits
 >>>>>>and additions on such a server, have them reviewed by someone at
 >>>>>>Wikipedia, and if they were non-vandalizing type posts, they could
 >>>>>>then be added to the Wikipedia

 >>>>>>I realize that this violates Wikipedia's open-source, anyone can
 >>>>>>edit philosophy to an extent, as someone would have to read and
 >>>>>>review these entries. It would also put additional burdens on
 >>>>>>Wikipedia's staff. But it would allow both the free flow of
 >>>>>>information and the
 >>>>>>protection of privacy.


 >>>>Actually, anyone could provide this service right now.  It doesn't
 >>>>have to place a burden on Wikipedia in any way.  All you need to do 
 >>>>is widely publicize some place where content can be dropped off
 >>>>anonymously (a mailing list, a wiki, an ftp server), and volunteer 
 >>>>to post it to Wikipedia as long as it's not obviously spam.

 >>um....my Chinese is kinda non-existent  :-)
 >>but I'll continue to ponder the problem. this IS important to me
 >>ctw

Speaking as a Wikipedia editor, this is a good idea in theory.  There 
would need to be a separate service for each language, just as there is 
a separate version of Wikipedia.  One important issue is copyright.  It 
is necessary to ensure that you comply with the terms of the GFDL and 
avoid copyright infringement.  The easiest way to do so is to clearly 
inform users of the "Wikipedia-proxy" service that contributions are 
released into the public domain.  This means you are free to post them 
to Wikipedia (or anywhere else...).  If this is unacceptable, you can 
let them post under the GFDL.  However, this creates attribution 
problems, so the public domain is better.  Another issue is that this 
will be a magnet for vandalism.  There will undoubtedly be constructive 
contributions, but also a mountain of spam.  Volunteers (and Wikipedia 
will not provide them) will have the review all the content; unlike 
pages on Wikipedia, they know that no one will read it until they are 
one.  Thus, it seems like dreary, hopelessly tedious work.  However, 
Wikipedia policies are not opposed to it, provided copyright issues are 
resolved.

-Matthew Flaschen