User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a Tor exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the implementation of Tor as part of Wikipedia's "fight back". petrarchan47tc 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except Wikipedia bans Tor because admins can't easily catch sockpuppets if they use Tor. You see, Wikipedia and the NSA do have something in common (the NSA usually has to DOS tor users; direct spying on Tor directly being more difficult). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon's proposal specifically addresses this (read only). Guy, is that idea written up anywhere in more technical detail? – SJ + 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can write up detailed instructions or even provide an image of a virtual machine that is already set up, but I doubt that the WMF developers need either. I have found them to be extremely competent in the past.

To expand on what I wrote above, the Tor node I am describing would:

• Talk to a strictly limited set of domains (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc). It would not have access (read or write) to any other domain.

• Be blocked from editing Wikipedia or any associated project (Wiktionary, Wikinews) that we may decide to give access to.

• Be physically located in one of our server rooms, with a direct (not internet) connection to our servers.

• It should have bandwidth throttling. Just being a Tor relay node that is unlikely to be controlled by the NSA has value; every new node increases the security of the network. That being said, we don't want to give the Tor traffic unlimited resources.

• Just to be extra careful, we should block read access to any kind of executable file (.exe, Javascript etc.) to make it harder for a Wikipedia editor to compromise a Tor user's privacy. See Tor (anonymity network)#Firefox / JavaScript anonymity attack on Freedom Hosting users.

So, where would one propose such a thing where it has a chance of getting WMF funding? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is imminently wise. No one should have to be afraid to read Wikipedia-- but in many places in the world, such fears are legitimate. To the extent that we can help give people the ability to read without fear, it's not just our duty as wikipedians to provide that help, it's actually our duty has human beings. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I have missed something in this thread, it is already possible to visit Wikipedia via Tor. All standard websites can be visited after downloading and running the software. However, clicking on the edit button should produce a message that the IP address is blocked on all wikis (screenshot). One additional possibility would be to offer Wikipedia as an .onion site, but this is not really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would allow the NSA to monitor the traffic between the Tor exit node and Wikipedia. Putting the exit node in our server room does not. See https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#CanExitNodesEavesdrop --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the identity of the people generating the traffic should be concealed by the various hops. An .onion site version of Wikipedia should solve this problem, but they are generally very slow to access.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds interesting to me but I'd like to understand better what is being proposed. I don't think there is any serious question of "funding" per se - this wouldn't cost any significant amount of money. What is the attack vector being contemplated, and against whom, and how would they avoid it by using this?

1. You can already use Tor to read Wikipedia. You generally can't edit using Tor, or anyway it is difficult, because when we have tried to unblock Tor exit nodes, we face high levels of abuse.
2. It is said up above that the NSA could monitor traffic between a normal Tor exit node and Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me to whom that would be dangerous. Traffic coming out of Tor exit nodes is already anonymized.
3. Using SSL means that (subject to some caveats) all the NSA can see is that a Tor exit node is talking to Wikipedia, not which pages are being looked at nor the content of them.
4. If I'm a Tor user, is it easy for me to specify that I want to use a particular exit node? This is a purely empirical question - I don't know the answer. It just strikes me as very likely that if we did set this up, no one would use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of the world's most visited websites, so a dedicated Tor exit node would require considerable bandwidth. It is possible to specify which countries are used for an exit node, and to ban certain countries, but this is generally for the more advanced user.[1] There is also a version of Tor which attempts to disguise the fact that you are using Tor [2], as some countries have learned how to block access.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "no one would use it" and "it would would require considerable bandwidth" Ian, meet Jimbo. Jimbo, meet Ian. (smile). I will get to the other questions tomorrow - it's late. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here are the answers to Jimbo's questions.

"You can already use Tor to read Wikipedia.

See below.

"You generally can't edit using Tor, or anyway it is difficult, because when we have tried to unblock Tor exit nodes, we face high levels of abuse."

I don't know why this keeps coming up. I clearly specified "read-only" in the title of this proposal, yet people keep telling me why we don't allow Tor write access.

"It is said up above that the NSA could monitor traffic between a normal Tor exit node and Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me to whom that would be dangerous. Traffic coming out of Tor exit nodes is already anonymized."

Assuming that the someone can monitor SSL traffic to Wikipedia from a Tor exit node (more on that below), what you look at on Wikipedia tells a lot about who you are. Imagine a Chinese user using Tor to look at Wikipedia, and assume that the authorities can see what he views but not who he is. He looks up Falun Gong, then Manzhouli (where he lives), then Mongolian Revolution of 1990, then he reads his talk page. From this whoever is doing the monitoring knows exactly who he is and has information that could cause him a lot of trouble.

"Using SSL means that (subject to some caveats) all the NSA can see is that a Tor exit node is talking to Wikipedia, not which pages are being looked at nor the content of them."

The NSA claims to be able to break SSL. See How does the NSA break SSL? for details on a plausible method that they can use to decrypt every past and future connection made from any existing Tor exit node to Wikipedia. If we have our own Tor exit node, they would have to ask us for access, and even if we were forbidden to reveal that fact, at least the WMF legal team would know.

"If I'm a Tor user, is it easy for me to specify that I want to use a particular exit node? This is a purely empirical question - I don't know the answer."

From the Tor FAQ:

Can I control which nodes are used for entry/exit?

Yes. You can set preferred entry and exit nodes as well as inform Tor which nodes you do not want to use.

Finally, answering Ian's concerns about bandwidth usage, I already specified bandwidth throttling in the proposal. We can give the Tor users as much or as little bandwidth as we choose. Also see my question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Can we measure Tor usage?. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2007, Swedish researcher Dan Egerstad set up a fake Tor exit node and used it to recover various passwords, including the e-mail passwords of embassies.[3][4] This a known attack vector for Tor, and users are advised never to log in via Tor, as they could fall foul of a malicious exit node. Tor uses HTTPS Everywhere which forces HTTPS connections when they are available. This should provide good security when visiting Wikipedia via Tor, but nothing in life is perfect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue also raises the question of how persons being monitored and/ or oppressed might be able to not only access but edit here without their work being used against them. I understand the reasoning behind block Tor to read only capabilities, but it might be useful to provide access for those wanting to edit with true anonymity in this age of government spying. There is also the problem of persons blocked by Wikipedia improperly who might find the existence of additional accessability useful, but that is another issue. But I do hope the systemic abuses here will be addressed some time soon. Candleabracadabra (talk)

As far as China is concerned, reports from foreign visitors suggest that Tor does not work there because the government knows how to block it.[5] This was one of the reasons for the development of obfsproxy, which is still experimental. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, what you are describing used to be a Tor feature. It was called an exit enclave, but no longer functions in current versions of Tor. Bandwidth limiting is built into Tor and is easy to set up. Blocking content based on the file extension or presence of Javascript isn't something Tor can do by itself.

Ian, people moving from accessing Wikipedia on the public Internet to accessing Wikipedia via Tor would not create more traffic. It would simply change its apparent source. However, I would hope that as more people feel safe that they can read Wikipedia without persecution, it would lead to more people around the world actually reading it, which would, in fact, create more traffic. That would be a good thing. 92.78.150.87 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, "Imagine a world..." We aren't there yet. We live in a world where what people read can be and often is used against them. That's the threat model. Tor helps by protecting the identities of millions of people all over the world. Operating a Tor relay costs nearly nothing (a spare box, electricity, bandwidth) and would be an amazing gesture of solidarity with those who believe in open access, freedom of information, and the right to read. Tor is getting a lot of publicity these days, making the cover story of BloombergBusinessweek. [6] Boing Boing runs a Tor relay, and there's still time for you to set one up before 2/11. 92.78.227.136 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am all set to make a formal proposal and shepherd it through the system as soon as this thread dies out and gets archived. Realistically we are not going to get this done before 2/11. Wikipedia simply does not move that fast. Our slow, deliberative consensus decision making simply cannot be hurried. For example, an RfC takes 30 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they bother intercepting traffic to this web site when:

1. most of what happens here is publicly logged anyway, so not a suitable venue for conspiratorial enterprises
2. if Wikipedia has any database mirrors around the globe (and I think it does), the NSA can obtain copies of the entire database in MUSCULAR style (check-user info and all)
3. if that's somehow not enough, they can QUANTUM their way to some poor WMF sysadmin's account
4. and if all that fails the can FISA for the entire database anyway, and won't be able to talk about it

Still think Tor is worth a damn for Wikipedia? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, and if you think the NSA can't mitm you because you're using SSL (even over Tor), that's also very naive. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice looking perfect solution fallacy you have there. Have you had it long? It looks really healthy and well-developed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently I did think about it more than you did (unless you are intentionally just looking to create sacrificial lambs from the average Wikipedia readers or you want to DDOS tor, but I AGF that you are not that smart & evil.) The average Wikipedia reader is likely to have their computer pwnd by (some TLA-made) malware as result of using tor [7][8] so it's more likely to be a net negative for them. (Even for the more skilled operators (at a minimum, not using MS Windows [9] and probably disabling JavaScript) tor isn't as peachy as previously thought [10][11]) Even WikiLeaks doesn't say that all their leakers should use Tor, and "Tor is usually VERY SLOW. Page load times of 5-60 seconds are normal. Please be patient." [12] And if you think that will lead more of the average Wikipedia readers to run their own exit nodes, pause and think how many average Wikipedia readers would knowingly want to run the risk of having their home computers confiscated (even just temporarily) when the inevitable child porn gets routed through their home machines. [13] Probably not many. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are bloviating about, but it has nothing to do with my proposal. I never implied that the average Wikipedia reader should use TOR, much less set up an exit node. You apparently are so wrapped up in creating melodrama that you are not responding to what people actually write. I am not going to read or respond to your comments after this; your snide remarks are not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody not using his real name, if you check your sources, you'll find that your conclusions are misleading and laced with your personal opinions. Guy, forums are full of well-informed people out to persuade people against using Tor. 92.78.150.87 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• People should not run Tor exit nodes from their home IP address. The Tor Project does not recommend this following cases where people were raided.[14] A relay can be run from a home IP address, as it does not show up as the source of the traffic.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note to this discussion, I'd like to point out that I'm less concerned about spies utilizing "man in the middle" attacks than I am about wholesale surveillance and data warehousing on the general public "just in case" some of them might do something in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in a typical NSA codename shell game STELLARWIND was closed down... only to be replaced by the much more comprehensive EVILOLIVE, SHELLTRUMPET etc. [16][17]. The fact that Special Source Operations (who does all this) is just a stub, should tell you how much the average person cares about his net traffic being warehoused in order to be Palantir'd later [18]. The main problem with recommending Tor as fix for that is that most people have no idea what it actually does and even people who are supposed to know a thing or two about secure communication used in a way was that actually made them less secure (at least in 2007): [19]: “Egerstad was able to read correspondence belonging to the Indian ambassador to China, various politicians in Hong Kong, workers in the Dalai Lama's liaison office and several human-rights groups in Hong Kong. Egerstad says it wasn't just e-mail that was exposed but instant messages passed internally between workers and any other web traffic that crossed the network. Among the data he initially collected was e-mail from an Australian embassy worker with the subject line referring to an "Australian military plan."” etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NSA Internet metadata db is called MARINA, and of course it doesn't have Wikipedia article--nobody cares, like I said. From [20]: “The Marina metadata application tracks a user’s browser experience, gathers contact information/content and develops summaries of target”. “Of the more distinguishing features, Marina has the ability to look back on the last 365 days’ worth of DNI metadata seen by the Sigint collection system, regardless whether or not it was tasked for collection.” And US citizens are exempt from Marina (or similar metadata collection): [21] "Additionally, metadata about U.S. persons collected in the United States can be used once it is captured. The Supplemental Procedures Governing Communications Metadata Analysis “enables the analytic to chain ‘from,’ ‘through,’ or ‘to’ communications metadata fields without regard to the nationality or location of the communicants, and users may view those same communications metadata fields in an unmasked form.” In plain English: the rules allow the NSA to hold information collected “incidentally” about U.S. persons and use it for analytics." The NSA MARINA guys even came up with cringe-worthy name pattern-of-life analysis [22] (You can even see it in various public resumes on LinkedIn usually abbreviated as POL.) The Palantir stuff the for CIA & FBI is basically the same thing [23], but they have the PR clue not to call it quite that, but rather call it link-and-pattern analysis [24]. Someone not using his real name (talk)

Guy: this is worth posting to wikitech-l. It would certainly make the Tor network slightly stronger; and we do want to support anonymous access to the projects. You might also propose this for a grant on Meta. Request developer time instead of money, and see what happens ;-) – SJ + 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that after this conversation comes to an end. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays it is very difficult to prevent the NSA and their pals at GCHQ from accessing anything that people do on the Internet, because they already have all the necessary legal powers to do this (just ask Ladar Levison at Lavabit). What is being proposed here - a dedicated Wikipedia Tor exit node - would not add greatly to what is already offered by the existing Tor Browser Bundle with HTTPS Everywhere. Even if the NSA and the intelligence agencies in other countries do operate some of the Tor exit nodes, which is considered to be likely, a dedicated Wikipedia Tor exit node would have to be hosted in a non-US friendly country to have much of an effect. In any case, the NSA presentation Tor Stinks suggests that the NSA has difficulty in de-anonymizing Tor users. This, combined with the Tor Project's recommendation to use end-to-end HTTPS as the default system, means that a separate Wikipedia Tor server is not really necessary. As an example, the search engine DuckDuckGo uses HTTPS by default, and is also available as an .onion site (http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m dot onion).[25] Provided that Tor and HTTPS are working correctly, the .onion version does not offer a large improvement in security. Instead of asking me for advice (or Jimbo for that matter), it might be better to ask the Tor Project if it believes that a separate Wikipedia Tor exit node is really necessary. People who want to help Tor are better advised to set up bridge relays.[26]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the symbolic value. Even if the added level of security can be defeated, it seems appropriate for us to at least try to make a Wikipedia anyone can read without fear. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a United States citizen, the government is similar to Don Corleone, as it is capable of making offers that cannot be refused. Furthermore, the citizen would be unable to reveal publicly that such a request had been made. This is why a Wikipedia exit node needs to be taken with a grain of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Corleone family is relevant to a discussion further up this page: you may wish to assist with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Connie Corleone, which may well be headed for a G13 deletion in the future if it isn't helped along the way. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'm not hearing an objection to directing our staff to do anything and everything possible to help our readers, wherever they are, freely read WP without being tracked, to the extent that that's possible. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

1. Yes, you can configure tor to exit from a specific node (or even set of nodes, like a country) [27][28][29]
2. Yes, some Tor exit nodes are mitming: [30]: "The researchers built a scanning tool called exitmap that can identify exit relays behaving maliciously or abnormally and ran it on the Tor network. Over a four-month period they identified 25 bad relays that were subsequently reported to the Tor Project and blacklisted. Fourteen relays engaged in man-in-the-middle HTTPS traffic sniffing using fake certificates, four relays did both HTTPS and SSH sniffing and one attempted only SSH sniffing. Two other relays used the sslstrip tool to force HTTPS connections over plain HTTP, one relay injected HTML code in HTTP traffic and three relays engaged in Internet censorship by blocking access to certain websites at the DNS level, intentionally or because of misconfiguration."
3. If you're a US person, the chances of you being spied on by the NSA actually increase if you use Tor [31]

Hope this helps. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also that it has been reported that the encryption used by secure sockets and thus by https connections can be broken by the NSA. I have no idea how accurate this report is, but I wouldn't trust https to keep anything secure from NSA intercepts. Such a Wikipedia exit node might have some symbolic value, but I doubt that it would greatly increase anyone's actual security or freedom from eavesdropping by the NSA or any similar governmental organization. DES ^(talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody with actual clearance to the details is talking; Snowden only had clearance to some overview and classification documents. See BULLRUN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a list of supposedly bad Tor relays here. However, a list of this kind is unlikely ever to be complete or up to date. You have been warned:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tor routing is based on ports, like port 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS). Tor Exit Routers have to explicitly allow specific ports to allow the passage of traffic over said port, which is done in a configuration policy on the Tor Exit Router (the TORRC file), which tells the rest of the Tor network which traffic you're willing to accept. If you accept only port 443 for example (presuming that only HTTPS traffic should pass), and then on Wikipedia's side block all other https-web traffic that is not a Wikimedia domain, you will literally censor the rest of the internet for any Tor client presuming that port 443 traffic will resolve through that Tor Exit Router. Nothing in the current Tor protocol would allow the Tor network to say-- "only this Tor Exit Router can pass traffic to these specific domains". This would not greatly affect the Tor network, as it would take a little bit of time for said Tor Exit Router to gain consensus, but more importantly, the Tor protocol would recognize said blocking and mark said router as a 'bad router', and it wouldn't pass any Tor Exit traffic at all.
2. The Tor network, nor the Tor Browser Bundle by itself, does not and cannot enforce "HTTPS-everywhere" or any other kind of protocol tampering, outside of wrapping said traffic in 3 layers of encryption. HTTPS needs to be enforced server-side using HSTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security).
3. Some people's comments here are correct-- people can already access Wikipedia using Tor. Tor users are just blocked from editing. Yawnbox (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. PFS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy) needs to be used server-side so that surveilled/recorded HTTPS sessions cannot be made into clear-text at a later date if the SSL private key becomes compromised.
2. What needs to be talked about is allowing Wikipedia to be writable to Tor users. Yawnbox (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re #2: You're joking. Most Internet Relay Chat servers ban access to Tor exit nodes, because of the obvious problems with spam and abuse. Wikipedia's policy is similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be technically feasible to allow editing only by logged-in users who access Wkipedia via Tor, but block IP (non-logged-in) users? DES ^(talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. See Template:Anonblock for the message we typically use, and Mediawiki's help page for blocking IPs for details on what options are available. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the idea of a read-only Tor exit node for Wikipedia. Sam Beebe ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as it doesn't get advertized as some miracle solution for the average reader, who probably won't benefit from it, and might even get trojaned by some TLA soon after setting up tor, I see no reason why not set up such an exit node. There are some technically advanced people would be able to use it properly to their advantage. As Jimbo mentioned though, finding out which pages one reads is not possible without breaking (mitming) SSL if one uses HTTPS. (And you still need to use HTTPS, even over tor.) So the added benefit of tor is... that the attacker won't even know that you're reading Wikipedia. Unlike (say) being found out that one uploaded something (no matter what) to WikiLeaks, the consequences of being discovered reading Wikipedia are probably zilch almost everywhere. But hey, if it floats your boat to hide that and are willing to put up with the massive slowdown (and not being able to edit) then... why not? It would probably help out some people in Iran or China, but it's tricky because while you can configure tor for a specific exit node, I doubt the WMF would allow a general purpose exit node (i.e. not just one that only allows traffic to Wikipedia.) So would be users would have to juggle exits nodes manually and repeatedly in that case, unless the tor software gets some special new features (like per URL exit nodes or something similar). Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• An adversary will always know if you are using Tor. What is much more difficult is knowing what the person did while using Tor. People in China cannot use Tor; it is generally agreed that it does not work there as the telcos have found how to block it.[32] A Wikipedia Tor node would not be much safer than the existing Tor/HTTPS setup used correctly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• actually, it is not true that "An adversary will always know if you are using Tor", nor is it true that "People in China cannot use Tor". Please see https://www.novainfosec.com/2013/05/07/free-tor-bridges-available-in-amazon-ec2/ for details about Tor bridges (computers that act as hidden gateways to Tor). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is another reason to run our own TOR exit node: http://cryptome.org/2013/08/tor-users-routed.pdf says "Onion routing is vulnerable to an adversary who can monitor a user’s traffic as it enters and leaves the anonymity network; correlating that traffic using traffic analysis links the observed sender and receiver of the communication." Running our own TOR exit node prevents the adversary from monitor the user’s traffic as it leaves the anonymity network. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard version of Tor may be detected by the Chinese authorities using deep packet inspection. Foreign visitors to China have reported difficulty in accessing Tor. Personally, I would steer clear of operating a Tor exit node from a home IP address, in line with the advice given by the Tor Project. A relay or bridge is safer. Bad exit nodes are a known problem for Tor, but the circuits switch every ten minutes or so to lessen this problem. An average visit, e.g. me looking up the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 on the English language Wikipedia, would be hard to detect. That is what Tor is for; revealing personal data via a Tor exit node is not recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a typical arms race; as soon as the Chinese authorities gain the ability to detect Tor, Tor starts working on getting better at imitating Skype, Bittorrent, etc. As soon as Tor gets better at hiding, the Chinese start working on better detection methods, and the next round starts.

That being said, it is unlikely that the Chinese authorities can monitor the output of an exit node in the US, The above scenario involves a US user with the NSA monitoring the entrance and exit nodes.

Of course if the Beijing Sigint Intelligence[33] asked the NSA to share the results of their monitoring of US ISPs, the likely answer would be "what information do you have that you would be willing to trade?" Give the NSA the chance to stop a major terrorist attack on the US at the cost of outing a few Chinese dissidents, and they would no doubt jump at the chance. And it's hard to say that they would be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get is, where did our faith go? What ever happened to "watering the tree of liberty"? Even in the month of September 2001, flying was still as safe as driving.^[34] We didn't have to surrender to a few shocking videos, abandon civil liberties, turn into aggressive imperialists, grope and fingerprint tourists, devastate populations, condone torture, and set up a monstrous surveillance state out of fear that it would happen again. All we really had to do was say a few prayers for the dead and go on with our lives, and we wouldn't have to be complicit in anything. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimmy,

I just saw your message at my talk page and sent you an email. Can you please, when you have a minute, reply at it. Just in case, if there are 2 emails and you are wondering which one, the first one was sent before seeing your message at my talk page and it's smaller than the second one. Thank you very much in advance. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, thanks for the reply. I sent an email as response about five minutes ago or something. Best Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, with great respect to departing Sue Gardner, seeing as the search for her replacement as the WMF's Executive Director has been ongoing for nearly a year please allow me to put forward a name familiar to many Wikipedians and internet users: Mike Godwin. Sue is going to be hard to follow, and his personable and congenial nature aside, I submit that his qualifications are overwhelming for the post, not the least of which include his efforts regarding SOPA, and his work before and after his fine three years here as General counsel. At a time when internet freedom and security is increasingly under attack, his extensive knowledge and experience is unquestioned, and I am sure I am not alone in the Wikipedia community in my certainty that he would do an outstanding job as we face the challenges ahead. In short: Mike Godwin is a perfect fit. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jusdafax 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we do not have the personnel file on that person, it is not reasonable for us to suggest any specific choice for a sensitive position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Draft User:Newyorkbrad. Lawyer, respected, dedicated. He might not take the pay cut but is by far the best person that should have a paid position. He understands every single issue and it should be his job to decline. I can understand a decline but not an offer. --DHeyward (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suggest an editor replace Sue. Seriously no...please.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's rationale may be among the sillier I've heard this week. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy, it appears a few here could use a refresher on Mike Godwin's stands, in his own words. Timely material in light of related concerns here as well. Thanks again! Jusdafax 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the Dolan fiasco happen on his watch? Also, was that Godwin who threatened ArbCom when they removed some admin privileges from some guy who was using them to get revenge on someone he didn't like? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^{[citation needed]}. Or do you like spreading empty rumors? --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Ilham Aliyev or Nursultan Nazarbayev would be good candidates since their governments have shown such effective governance over their respective language Wikipedias. The WMF apparently approves since they haven't done anything about it. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I highly doubt the peanut gallery on Jimbo's talk bage will have any impact whatsowver, FWIW I'd also support Newyorkbrad. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 for MGodwin. Thank you very much to Jusdafax for allowing us to reflect on his views in his own words, the speech is most fascinating material with respect to issues surrounding freedom of speech and censorship! — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! Mike Godwin is indeed a fine, amusing public speaker. Amazing to think that he has been working, writing, teaching and fighting for internet freedoms for nearly a quarter century, longer than a significant percentage of our editors have been able to type. Godwin literally wrote the book on this crucial topic. I contend that the WMF needs a high-profile internet legend at the helm; there are stormy times upon us. Jimmy, I take your silence as a good sign, and thanks for leaving this thread open. Jusdafax 02:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support at least asking Godwin. I'd also support Stephen Walling recusing himself from any part of the considerations. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales

We had that, have it and will always have: It is called THE INTERNET.

So why is there any need to have one central site trying to sum it up (and thereby severely distort it, going through ONE GIANT FILTER) , rather than have the respective citizens BUILD THEIR OWN OPINION???--37.230.25.112 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because "knowledge" is not a video of a talking dog saying "I love you"...and opinion is not the sum of human knowledge but the digested bits that one understands and comments on, none of which is knowledge...just....fluff and text. Any other questions?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also because far from ALL human knowledge is currently on the internet. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point with the talking dog, but you put it much clearer.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can have both? Diego (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I saw a thesis once that compared the effect of freely-available health information on the internet to the effect of a written English Bible on Christianity; yes, it made for more educated people, but it also opened up worse dangers of tremendously improbable or impossible interpretations being held up as fact, and then acted upon by others. Wikipedia is at least a lightly-filtered, slightly peer-reviewed compendium ES&L 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And you can start new wikipedias, each with a different filter. Or mini-wikipedias, to cover specialized areas of knowledge. Nobody is forced to use only wikipedia! --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think www.ippedia.org (the 'pedia only editable anonymously) is available  :-) ES&L 13:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw this and well, I have stumbled upon one or two of these pages and I have come up with a slight solution. We just put a template at the top of each page saying "This page contains explicit content, user discretion is advised, etc." and it will alert people of what certain photos their eyes may see. It's a simple and easy solution that we are quite capable of accomplishing. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals - the very first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.67.6 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Debates on which pages or images should get such a warning might well be toxic, and the mere presence of such a template will act as a form of censorship, whether we intend that or not. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, um, it's just a warning template, is it really that shunned? I mean really, I've stumbled on explicit content about 6 times on WIkipedia and scarred every time, I think I and others should be warned before reading more into the article, just sayin. It doesn't really remove the photo, does it? ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, forget I even asked, it looks like it's never going to change at this point. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (See what I'm up to)}

Well OK then, we'll forget that you asked, however since so many other keep bringing this up, it is unlikely anyone will forget that it is thorn in the side of this encyclopedia. One answer could be code that allows a pop up that is not actually on the page itself but appears as a disclaimer OVER articles and then allows you to decide to continue or direct you to a Disney article. I have seen his before..it is more than a possibility, but do we as a community agree it is even needed. Many here feel that such images should not be censored. While I agree on the face of that, it does this site little good to allow unfortunates who disapprove to fall onto these pages without warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be one of public perception. We do have disclaimers, and one link to them appears in every page, but they're as good as invisible - people are still surprised when they find about the lack of guarantees and objectionable content. The link is buried at the footer section, with no indication that it contains information relevant to the general reader; and the "not censored" warning is double buried under a second link to the Content disclaimer.

Our readers would be much better informed of the nature of the site and could make informed choices if we had a link to the disclaimers in a more visible place. I'd put it in the main page, above the fold, so that readers at least have a chance to know that the Disclaimers exist. The Welcome to Wikipedia box with the motto seems the perfect place - it could say "4,436,549 articles in English - see our Disclaimers", with a link to a summary version of the disclaimers (written in "five pillars" style). Diego (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there is a general principle that article should follow that possibly objectionable content should only occur where you expect to find it. Thus, Penis is going to have nudity, since a reasonable person should expect as much, while Daisies shouldn't, because you wouldn't expected (e.g., a photo of a nude person holding a daisy would be inappropriate for daisies, although daisies in a vase would be appropriate, even though the only difference is the possibly objectionable extraneous material.). WilyD 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A few things: oddly, I don't seem to stumble upon the types of articles that are subject to any form of "shocking" images. If I go to an article about Ford, I expect a picture of a Ford - or at least its logo. If I go to an article about Disneyland, I expect to find a picture of Disneyland - or at least its logo. If I was visit an article about penises, I would expect to find a picture of a penis (maybe that's why I don't go to that article?) Yes, I would be "shocked" to go to an article about Ford and find an image of an anus - and rightly so. What we really don't need, however, is a new slogan like "Wikipedia: come for the information, stay for the free porn" ES&L 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty much. I do recall an incident involving a vandal that I won't explain in detail so as not to give others ideas. But my experience is that if you are complaining about the existence of explicit content, it is almost always because you went looking for it. Resolute 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember vandals putting up an image of a big black butt and vagina so it would appear, I think it was on every page? (if so there are some folks at WP:Draft who would like to learn that trick for more mundane reasons) And another one where the front page was replaced by an immense HTML table graphic of goatse. I understand we have to combat such vandalism in order to function at all, and yet... they helped to remind us that Wikipedia was an open site where anything should be possible. (This thread inspired me to look up and add a William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting to Daisy, but as luck would have it, it wasn't one of those wonderful paintings he made, just an adorable little girl) Wnt (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rim of the Sky: Can you actually give some examples of places you've "stumbled across explicit content which scarred you" in a place where you wouldn't expect to find explicit content, as I'm not aware of this being a problem? It's certainly a problem on Commons - see the innocuously named commons:Category:Deep knee bends for instance - but I've never come across it on Wikipedia itself. Mogism (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mogism Well, it's usually redirect links. For example, like this: rose. The text says something but the link turns out to be different. One time I searched up old school to see if Wikipedia had an article (I forget why). It led me to a disambiguation page where one link was Old-Fasioned which led me to another disambiguation page. There then was the Old-Fashioned (Slang). I clicked it, not reading the sentence after it (Yes, my fault) and it led me to the page for handjob. I only saw it for 1 second but wow did it scare the life out of me. I don't even know why there is a page for handjob and I don't want to know, but we all know the defenition of explicit content. I even went to the human page and when scrolling down I found the completely nude anatomy which I was not expecting.

Some people find explicit content disturbing, but to defend that Wikipedia had said that there is always something disturbing that people find and it applies to few. Explicit content on the other hand is I find different. If a movie has explicit content, it is 18+, correct? It's basically nudity. Should we not give a warning towards Nudity? Nudity IS nudity, no matter what people think about it. I'm not saying to censor nudity, but to warn before continuing down the page. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place where this can be debated other then a talk page? It's sort of taking up space. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a village pump, which is a centralized discussion area. I can tell you ahead of time that you won't get anywhere by proposing we start throwing up explicit content banners. A more nuanced approach of opening a discussion about where the current disclaimers are located and whether there is a better for them might prove viable. Overall though, I doubt you will be satisfied with the response. Resolute 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If a movie has explicit content, it is 18+, correct? It's basically nudity." A movie containing nudity certainly doesn't entail it being rated 18+ in the jurisdiction I'm in. And probably not in quite a few others either.

"Nudity IS nudity" - on this point you are correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity alone does not make an image, video or film 18 plus. In fact a naked male behind is still considered a G rating in the states I beleive. Just saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up got a PG rating because when the old man hits a constauction worker there's like a few drops of blood, so that claim is hard to believe. KonveyorBelt 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, earlier I found this site which logs Wikimedia IRC channels, an act against rules, which they acknowledge. My question is: can we do anything about this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no protection from IRC logging. If you abuse IRC, assume and expect to be called on it. If you want privacy, use email. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. I'm not sure if WMF could assert copyright, but other than that, there is no real recourse except to block access to those found to be violating the TOS for those IRC channels. But as Tarc notes below: IRC (the entire internet, really) is not a private medium. Resolute 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding, give that man a cigar. Wikipedia's "unofficial" channels are a slimy hive of unprincipled abuse that should have had the unflinching light of scrutiny and accountability - in the form of full and public logging, such as happens in many other free culture projects - shone upon them long ago. — Scott • talk 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted logs off-wiki when something particularly interesting/juicy has taken place there, and have no qualms about doing so again if the situation warrants it. You do not have an expectation of privacy in IRC; the "rule" you cite is unenforceable. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have long made it a personal policy that I will not discuss Wikipedia business over IRC. But given that the "no-log" rule is not enforceable, and that it is counter to the normal expectations for IRC channels, and the general practice of transparency on Wikipedia, why is this rule promulgated at all? DES ^(talk) 22:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it implied that one purpose of the rule is to provide something to do for people who feel an impulse to break rules. Keeps 'em busy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My general feeling has been that the "no logging" rule is simply to prevent people from using, on-wiki, what someone says on IRC against them wantonly or as justification for performing on-wiki actions. They're simply separate mediums. There might be copyright issues on the nit-grit somewhere—I'm not a lawyer—but I think it's more "let's draw the line here: we won't record the gossip people talk about while they're powdering their nose in the bathroom." One example is people asking for advice on how to proceed so that they Do The Right Thing™ without their first-draft response being indelibly on-record. Another's if an editor was chilling in one of those channels and makes some unpopular-but-honest remark; the expectation's that they shouldn't be held to it as being an on-wiki action (e.g., it's not going to be the subject of a diff opposing someone for wanting to be on the Mediation Committee or something). On a related note, this also prevents admins from taking on-wiki actions "per IRC" and helps ensure official discussions stay on-wiki. Anyway, long story short, this allows IRC to be a place where people can practice, vent frustrations, bitch, take a break, or even fight in hopes that they're less prone to doing those same things on-wiki to more disastrous effect. Obviously there's no way to fool-proof-edly prevent some random dude logging or reposting of logs to 3rd party sites, but that's neither the primary intent nor predominant application of the rule anyway. :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squeaky Dolphin. It was pretty much a give that would snoop social media writes such as Tweets, but they seem to care about reads too, at least on Blogspot/Blogger. I'm pretty sure they keep track of who (real persons) write what on Wikipedia too, possibly reads too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you telling us that we cynics didn't already suspect? KonveyorBelt 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This category is needed to provide a single page view of various historical slave owners. My edits to U.S. presidents having been slave owners are being reverted; in Germany denying certain parts of history is a crime, in other countries it's just inaccurate and offensive. That murderers is a category but not slave owners is not seems a like a very bad sign to me. I'm probably going to be blocked again, I would very deeply appreciate your assistance and that of anyone else. Thank you either way; I thought I could help wikipedia the way wikipedia helped me. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe, first, don't start crying "Jimbo help me" when you get reverted. Second, CensoredScribe arbitrarily created the category Category:Slave owner within the past few hours and added it to George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. He has a history of creating poorly thought out categories that he and only he populates based on his personal concept of what fulfills the category. In addition, he had begun to revive categories that have long been deleted due to the community's decision that it serves no purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Um, have you tried actually engaging in a discussion with anyone over this? As far as I can see, all you've done so far is create the category, and then add it to four articles on U.S. presidents - nothing on any talk page. Nothing. [35] Your first action after being reverted is to come crying to Jimbo that you are 'probably going to be blocked again'. Frankly, I think that is pathetic. If you think the category is justified, argue for it properly, rather than playing the 'censorship' card. Bogus martyrdom rarely fools anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing - you write "I'm probably going to be blocked again". Your account has never been blocked. Have you previously edited under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate that the odds that an account including the word "censored" will prove to be unproductive exceed 99%. All serious students of U.S. history know that several early presidents owned slaves. No one is censoring that, but pointy editing regarding that fact is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most slave owners were not presidents. I assume correctly most wouldn't even be Americans yet for some reason that bias wasn't as important; I am naturally less familiar with less famous figures. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to make a serious case for the 'slave owner' category, you would probably have done better not to have created such arbitrary and time-wasting categories as 'Category:Fictional headless' and 'Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls' at the same time. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for things you thought up while you were emptying the cat litter. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and nobody but you is interested in such drivel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is now a thread at WP:ANI (started by CensoredScribe) concerning this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate, though, if a perfect good category ends up not being created due to cluelessness on the part of the creator. "I estimate that the odds that an account including the word 'censored' will prove to be unproductive exceed 99%." is correct. I think a valid discussion could be had as to whether a category like this could be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders have existed before, with the latter being deleted via CFD. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading statement, BOTH categories were deleted, while only the latter one was "discussed". This "discussion" included statements like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today. Cat chi? 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)". --37.230.31.100 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting the deletion via CFD is completely ignoring this fact "The American Civil War (1861–1865) started as a war to prevent the literal segregation of the North and South, but it soon became a fight of the eradication of the institution of slavery." (from Slaves_and_the_American_Civil_War) and is actually trying to trivialize the issue of slavery, stating further comments like "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"--37.230.31.100 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect less than one percent of the population are economically, romantically; or socio-politically able to become CENSORED (8 letter hate word) like Jack Parsons, Osiris, Gene Wilder, Legion and Lazarus. Though I also know what I just said in that last sentence would never fly in an article; you should add Wikipedia not a utopia as a page. It will never be added to an article because that original research is less credible a theory than ancient aliens; which at least has a television show to reference. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, Bethel Township wants to know... what percentage of your Talk page visitors do you love? What percent do you like? What percent are you indifferent? What percent dislike? And what percent do you loathe? - 108.16.215.80 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This way of thinking is very alien to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo - Fuck (film) has been nominated for "Today's featured article" at the TFA requests page. One of the comments says that this should not run without WMF approval, since using "fuck" on the main page "will trigger automated filters and get Wikipedia blacklisted on a lot of corporate networks, get Wikipedia blocked from schools worldwide, and get the site banned as a whole in large swathes of Africa and Asia. ... and Jimmy Wales is going to have to spend the next few months trying to persuade assorted sceptical governments that Wikipedia doesn't represent a threat to public decency..." Do you have any thoughts on this comment, or indeed the request? Thanks, Bencherlite (TFA co-ordinator) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a zillion things that can trigger filtering software, see Scunthorpe problem. Fuck (film) could do this, but if it is a Featured Article it should be treated on its own merits as WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I think that WP:NOTCENSORED is almost never a useful consideration for just about anything. No one is contemplating censoring Wikipedia, so that's irrelevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo was Today's Featured Article on December 17, 2012. Some Featured Articles have controversial content, but they should all have equal status. Although the main page is more visible, there are plenty of things that can set off filtering software when browsing on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't entail the removal of content, but barring material from appearing on the main page (because it contains a word deemed offensive) raises some of the same issues.

I think that the concerns regarding collateral damage are valid, but I question the likelihood of such a fallout. The word "fuck" has appeared on the main page before (not without controversy, but with nothing approaching the doomsday scenario that some envision). And as noted in the TFA request discussion, Gropecunt Lane appeared as TFA without major incident. —David Levy 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I do consider changing the rules on something like TFA because one does not like the subject matter to be censorship. While the aim of such an action would not be to remove the content, it would be designed to mask and hide the content. In this specific case, it would be a most ironic act of censorship. IMO, the only potentially credible objection to running this article would be risk of triggering profanity filters and causing a widespread block of Wikipedia. I'm not sure that is actually a significant concern, however, as we have numerous articles and far more talk pages that invoke George Carlin's seven dirty words and I am not aware of any complaints about Wikipedia - in whole or in part - being blocked as a result. Resolute 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose censorship, and it looks like a reasonably interesting article. Nonetheless, the two posters for the film in the article both use "F★ck" as the title, as did many reliable sources covering it. Therefore, it seems to me to be at the discretion of TFA posters to decide to use the star in the Main Page blurb if they wish. (It may take some tweaking to get the best display for this) What difference the display of a character makes in a moral sense, of course, is a matter for consideration. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the article that an asterisk was substituted for the "u" in some marketing materials because of restrictions that prevented the film's actual title from appearing.

In an interview about the film on his website, Anderson discussed his problems when he decided to name his film Fuck instead of a censored version of the word. He said he always wanted to call the documentary Fuck, because it succinctly described the film's contents. There were inherent problems with this approach, including an inability to advertise the film with its true title in mainstream media such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (they used four asterisks instead), although the real title might be permitted in alternative newspapers like LA Weekly. Anderson also anticipated problems displaying the film's title during film festivals on theatre marquees.

Anderson explained that although the title of his documentary was Fuck, he allowed alternate designations using an asterisk. The film and content he controlled would refer to the title as Fuck, including theatrical and DVD editions. He concluded that his struggle reflected the debate alluded to by the documentary, and this realization motivated him to stand firm on the film's title. Because the film is about how a taboo word can impact culture, it was important to keep Fuck as its title.

If F★ck were the film's actual title, this would be reflected in our article, including its title. (MediaWiki supports the "★" character, so F★ck is a functional redirect.) —David Levy 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - my feeling is that Wikipedia is no better than its sources, and so if its sources split the difference we could also. I'm not saying you can't use the film's intended title, only that we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient. My main concern is that it be featured, not which sourced version of the title we use in doing so. (I was only suggesting you could use stars in the movie title, not whenever the word appears) Wnt (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - my feeling is that Wikipedia is no better than its sources, and so if its sources split the difference we could also. I'm not saying you can't use the film's intended title, only that we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient.

You're suggesting that we refer to the film as "****"?

The New York Times has an editorial policy of censoring certain words. Wikipedia has a policy against it. This doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other, but it's a material difference.

If the film had an actual alternative title, that would be one thing. The producer/director has stated that it doesn't (and that such renderings constitute the very type of censorship that he opposes and seeks to criticise via the film).

My main concern is that it be featured, not which sourced version of the title we use in doing so.

In my opinion, excluding the article from TFA would be preferable to including it with a censored title. Not every featured article makes it onto the main page, so outright omission doesn't inherently violate Wikipedia's principles. Replacing words with censored versions does. —David Levy 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very peculiar for me to argue this side of a censorship-related issue, but look at the images in the article. There are not one but two posters, presumably made by or with direct approval of the filmmakers, showing a star in place of the "u". In any case the article should run, star or not, and as I said the lead should contain the direct reference to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. So this wouldn't be a complete suppression, just a choice to use a widely publicized if unofficial alternate title for the film as a matter of style. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence of the article is "Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck"." This means that the word "fuck" would appear on the main page regardless of the article title, as "From today's featured article" always has the opening paragraph to give a taster of the text. The claim that the sky would fall down with obscenity filters seems undue. This is not strictly a WP:NOTCENSORED issue, as Jimbo and others have pointed out. The real issue is whether the article is worth having on the main page. It has a properly cited encyclopedic context, and is not a "shock for shock's sake" scenario which would rightly set off criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are not one but two posters, presumably made by or with direct approval of the filmmakers, showing a star in place of the "u".

And as discussed above, this was censorship necessitated by the rules of the media in which the advertising appeared. Wikipedia, conversely, has a policy against censorship. We mention the F★ck variant and display the posters to document the aforementioned advertising (and the censorship that occurred therein), but we don't censor the film's title ourselves.

Your citation of the posters is confusing, as you just opined that "we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient". In its review, The New York Times referred to the film as "****" (but explained that this is not its title).

So this wouldn't be a complete suppression, just a choice to use a widely publicized if unofficial alternate title for the film as a matter of style.

A choice based solely on a desire to censor a word deemed objectionable. That isn't our "style". —David Levy 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a point about that ref, and in any case, I've been sitting uncomfortably on this nuanced position. Perhaps I should simply stick with a more familiar anti-censorship position. The bottom line in all this is that if the article runs and trips some censorware, that's a) not our problem and b) not the wrong thing for us to do. Wikipedia really isn't child safe, can't be, because anyone can edit here, and a kid could go on any talk page or an email or IRC chat and end up being persuaded, if sufficiently naive, to meet someone at a public place for some particularly unfortunate kind of education. That's not to say we're exceptionally dangerous, but we should think of this place like a massive city library with three or four floors where all sorts of things could happen to an unwary and unescorted child. An occasional shot across the bow that reminds parents and school administrators that Wikipedia does contain a wide range of content and opportunities is just being honest. I reconcile this position with my general disdain for censorware by saying that it is a parent's or teacher's job to raise a child, not a machine's, and one purpose of that education is to ensure that the child is able to look at content like this without disruptive consequences long before he reaches adulthood. Hopefully the attempt by those in charge to reconcile that a) Wikipedia is a good thing and b) Wikipedia contains "objectionable" content will lead to a different way of thinking about such matters. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone bothered to ask whether the nomination is sincere? EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Others may find this interesting to look into. It seems that the fact that the book is fictional was discussed in the Sunday Times back when the book was originally published.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]