Is Frank the host of wikipedia or merely a control freak in DRAG? was Re: wikipedia vandalism

[tor]

Actually Frank I have a question are you merely a wikipedia user or do 
you host and run the wikipedia site? if the latter then you migh benefit 
from the technical discussions going on here.

If however you are merely a wikipedia user as a lot of us are then why 
do you think your points are more important that my anonymity? or are 
you a control freak in disguise...?


   interested readers wish to know?




Frank v Waveren wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:04:52AM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>  
>
>>[snip technical solutions]
>>    
>>
>Yes, there are a lot of possible technical tentative solutions (and if
>you want to code them, it'd be much appreciated). However, until we
>have those solutions, blocking anonymous proxies is a necessity. Keep
>in mind however that a single group of users being blocked from
>wikipedia is losing out on the labour of that group of people, but
>those edits can always (theoretically) be done by others. First-hand
>experiences and other information "that's need to be brought out in
>the open" shouldn't be put on wikipedia and will be removed anyway,
>wikipedia is not intended for original research and other information
>that cannot be verified from references anyway. Whistleblowers and
>witnesses of crimes should publish elsewhere first, then once that
>information published we can describe and reference it.
>
>
>  
>
>>(You mention in your Talk wiki that you used to run a Tor node? I think
>>you might be confused about how Tor works, since you have never run a
>>Tor node to my knowledge. Most Tor users are just clients; I'm guessing
>>that's what you ran. We have probably upwards of 10k-20k people using Tor
>>currently, and I imagine some of them do, or would like to do, Wikipedia
>>edits.
>>    
>>
>Oops, yeah. I've messed around with so many anonymity mix nets that
>it's all become a bit of a blur :)
>
>  
>
>>As a trivial example, I noticed a grammar problem while browsing the
>>entry on Svalbard today, and I can't fix it. Oh well.)
>>    
>>
>That's a shame, but it's also prevented a herd of vandals from
>replacing 2000 articles by "Wikipedia sucks!", so all in all I think I
>prefer it like this. Of course you could always edit wikipedia from a
>different host (use ssh port forwarding and an entry in your
>/etc/hosts, just a few seconds to set up), or you could add 
>   reject 207.142.131.0/255.255.255.0:*
>and mail me that you've done so, and after verifying I'll unblock your
>IP.
>
>  
>
>>It seems the culmination of the thread from the February 2004 wikipedia
>>list is the statement
>>"In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies.  I wish
>>them well.  There are many valid uses for them.  But, writing on
>>Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses."
>>    
>>
>Yup, that's pretty much it.
>
>  
>
>>If this is truly the concensus of the wikipedia community -- that
>>wikipedia values equal access for all, except when it comes to people
>>who value their privacy -- then I guess the discussion is over. I think
>>in that case it ends in Wikipedia's loss, since you block a few IPs,
>>yet there are still many IPs left for vandals to use that you do not
>>block. As the Tor network grows, you will be blocking more and more
>>potentially useful users, yet not really impacting the number of IPs
>>available to the vandals.
>>    
>>
>Quite the opposite, we've only just started large scale blocking of
>anonymous proxies, and we appear to already have stopped one very
>persistent vandal, at least for the time being. Apart from a few
>anecdotal "I'd like to fix a typo but can't now" comments here, I
>haven't heard from any major (or minor for that matter) contributors
>who can't contribute any more (except a few who I've helped to either
>reconfigure tor and unblocked),helped to use their ISP proxy to edit,
>or shown that when editing as a logged-in user your IP isn't public.
>
>
>  
>