Wikipedia talk:Advice to users using Tor: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Babelfisch (talk | contribs) |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 20:
:This rhetorical question is based upon the erroneous notion that there is such a thing as ''the law'' that may or not be circumvented by a person. To be clear: there is no such thing as ''the law''. Humans create [[civil law]], [[common law]], [[customary law]], [[criminal law]], [[administrative law]], [[admiralty law]], [[ecclesiastical law]] and [[international law]]. These laws apply only to a defined set of [[natural persons]] or [[legal persons]], [[property]], non-human animals, plants, woodlands and riverine systems, maritime systems, etc, in a stipulated [[jurisdiction]] at a given place and at a given time. The laws may be decided by [[referendum]], by [[statute]], by [[case law]], by [[royal prerogative]], by [[decree]]. As well as [[Act of Parliament]], [[Act of Congress]] or [[Act of Tynwald]], etc, there are [[statutory instruments]], [[regulations]], [[rules]], [[standing orders]], codes of practise, [[codicils]], [[national standards]], state standards, local government standards, [[memoranda of understanding]], [[building codes]], health and safety codes, fire codes, sanitation codes, waste disposal codes, hygiene codes, non-human animal codes, hospital policies, school policies, employment policies, sporting policies, contractual agreements, nuptial agreements etc that are subservient to the legal acts. The intended territorial applicability and legal extent of any given law, and all that given law's subsidiary consequences, created by one or more persons, may be limited to any person resident, or property that exists, in a [[manor]], [[parish]], [[diocese]], [[local government]], [[metropolis]], [[state]], [[nation]], or [[internationally]]. Usually, [[man-made law]] is not [[retroactive]] and does not apply to past deeds or to the dead. Nevertheless, laws can be retroactive and apply to every natural and legal person, and even to non-human animals, living or not. Many nation states, or states within a nation state, may try to overreach - insisting that they have [[exclusive jurisdiction]] over territory, resources, persons and the [[resolution of disputes]] to which other states may also lay claim. In conclusion, the [[naive]] assertion that there is such a thing as ''the law'' is not sustainable.[[Special:Contributions/58.165.105.140|58.165.105.140]] ([[User talk:58.165.105.140|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::That's all correct but unnecessarily pedantic. The short version is: There is no such thing as "the" law. There are particular laws, within particular jurisdictions, to which any given entity may be subject. Wikimedia Foundation and its projects are not subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the People's Republic of China, Turkey, or other countries that censor or block Wikipedia and its sister projects.<p>Furthermore (and to echo something the other anon said), just because something is "a law" somewhere doesn't make it {{em|just}}, or worth our consideration. Lots of nasty regimes create lots of laws that no reasonable entity would comply with (e.g. because they violate international-law concepts of human right) unless one would be directly subject to punishment for not doing so. WMF in particular has an explicit mission of providing unfettered access to information and tools to create and disseminate it, making it incompatible by definition with things like the Great Firewall of China. As for risks specific individuals may incur in evading things like their own jurisdiction's censorship systems, they are already aware of these risks and are doing it anyway on a regular basis. WP is not increasing their risk; this page tells people how to best interact with WP through Tor if they have already decided to take the risk of bypassing unethical governmental restrictions.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)</p>
== Are we still hardblocking Tor? ==
Line 63 ⟶ 64:
::: ''Your'' “current practice” is not undisputed (see [[:meta:User_talk:Ajraddatz#IPBE|here]]), and the policy is under discussion right now ([[Wikipedia talk: IP block exemption]]). --[[User:Babelfisch|Babelfisch]] ([[User talk:Babelfisch|talk]]) 19:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Meta's practice for handing out IPBE is different from the way that en.wiki handles IPBE. It's no different to how each project has it's own policies regarding admin/'crat/OS/CU roles, deletion discussions, article notability, project maintenance, etc. Respectfully, I'm not too bothered by Reguyla's opinion of me. He doesn't seem to have a favorable opinion of any administrator, nor is he particularly kinds towards us when we have to block his sock accounts. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
== Academic paper about Wikipedia and Tor ==
The paper is
*{{Cite conference| publisher = College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University Philadelphia, PA, USA| conference = CSCW '17| pages = 12| last1 = Forte| first1 = Andrea| last2 = Andalibi| first2 = Nazanin| last3 = Greenstadt| first3 = Rachel| title = Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: a study of Tor users and Wikipedians| booktitle = Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW). Portland, OR| date = 2017-03-25| url = http://andreaforte.net/ForteCSCW17-Anonymity.pdf}}
It was covered in ''[[WP:Signpost|The Signpost]]'' at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/Recent_research]].
[[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
| |||