From jwales@wikia.com Fri Jul 6 02:38:18 2018 From: Jimmy Wales To: cypherpunks-legacy@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Abuse resistant anonymous publishing - Proposed solution to the Wikipedia issue. Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 02:38:18 +0000 Message-ID: <172289244257.3881296.505022077272924975.generated@mail.pglaf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1175685814950068895==" --===============1175685814950068895== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben Burch wrote: > The biggest problem I see is that if moderation is commissive, rather > than reactive, then if the original poster commits a crime (like > violating the Official Secrets Act) then the moderator who approves the > posting would likely be liable for the same crime. Well, at least with respect to Wikipedia there are a few misconceptions I should clear up. First, something like that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia on editorial grounds. ("No original research") -- we have specific intellectual standards that would generally preclude that sort of thing. Second, 'moderation' at wikipedia is reactive. That is, people vandalize, and then we clean it up. > The only solution I can think of that would allow Tor and Wiki to > interoperate would be to have a Tor-Wikipedia Moderation Team who would > actively look for Wikipedia vandalism originating from Tor exit nodes, > and revert out vandal's postings promptly. > > The support we would need from Wikipedia would be minor; Wiki would > have to implement a Watch function for postings from Tor exit nodes > that the Tor-Wikipedia moderation team would get email notifications > on. There already are exit node listings that would allow Wikipedia to > create and refresh this list on a regular basis, and obviously they can > already do that as they have implemented a block. Wikipedia would have > to agree that the Tor-Wikipedia Moderation Team would have the right to > revert ANY change from a Tor exit node without discussion. Once the > vandals realize that they won't have any fun using Tor to vandalize > Wikipedia, the job of the TWMT would get quite easy, as I don't imagine > there would be more than a few dozen real edits on any given day from > the Tor cloud. > > Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Well, it seems unlikely that we could recruit enough people to do this effectively. We already have a huge number of people monitoring the site, people who are (mostly) sympathetic to Tor's aims, but they get tired of it. --Jimbo ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which h= ad a name of signature.asc] --===============1175685814950068895==--