Nick Mathewson wrote:

But these aren't your goals, if I understand correctly. Wikipedia doesn't ultimately care how Tor is implemented, or what it contains, so long as it is significantly less effective as a tool for Wikipedia abuse. Yes?

That's right. I'm not an expert in Tor-ish matters, and so despite my strident manner at times, I am very happy to learn more and understand why some initial suggestion I might have has already been considered and rejected with good cause. And as an ongoing gesture of goodwill, let me explain _why_ I want Tor to be significantly less effective as a tool for Wikipedia abuse. It isn't because Tor is a threat to our work. One of the nice things about how Tor is implemented is that we can easily get a list of the exit servers and block them. Problem solved. No, the reason I am interested in exploring possibilities for reducing the abuse is not to protect wikipedia, but to make it possible for Tor's goals to be achieved more effectively.

{1} To be clear, I think that it's more accurate to talk about changes to the User/Tor/Wikipedia interaction, and to suggest a need for action by the Tor project and its supporters, than to talk about a need for changes in Tor's architecture, and a need for action by Tor.

Yes. The one thing I should caution against, though, is assuming that the right solution to the problem should involve anything complicated on the part of Wikipedia. We're willing to do whatever, but I'm also interested in how this problem can be solved more generally. In this way, tor servers can be allowed to post anonymously and in a hit-and-run fashion to blogs, for example. --Jimbo ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ 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 had a name of signature.asc]