User talk:Nanite/Onion linking guidelines draft
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Deku-shrub
Great work on the templates! However I don't believe offering Tor2Web proxies is safe or advisable so I'm removing it from the template, let's discuss if you disagree! Deku-shrub (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Deku-shrub: I'm of two minds on it as well --- I like the help of offering an easy view (especially for The Daily Stormer, because, damn the censors. :D), however I only trust the proxies half way.
- Let's leave off the proxy for the moment. However I'm going to restore the "accessing link help" superscript for the linked case - still good to let users know that they need a special browser to even click on the link.
- One alternative I'm considering is that the "accessing link help" points to a helper page. We already do this with, e.g., {{cite book}} linking to Special:BookSources/354063293X, or with {{Coord}} linking to a map helper 37°14′06″N 115°48′40″W / 37.23500°N 115.81111°W. Obviously I'm not expecting that Wikimedia Foundation will bless us with a special handling page, but it would be nice to have something more explanatory and instructional than just linking to Tor Browser section. Do you think this is worth doing? --Nanite (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest I've been trying to get a more liberal attitude towards onion links on Wikipedia for a couple of years now, it's only recently there are even a significant amount of white listed links at all to use as case studies such as the Facebook one. However Tor2Web is not the answer for routine Tor use, any more than a proxy (such as the sort I run) is a substitute for direct authoritative access. It's possible there should be a Wikipedia-space guide on accessing onion links which mentions Tor2Web and other non-standard protocol / domains which can be linked from the widget. Such a dedicated page could maybe offer a Tor2Web link if highly disclaimered. If the Wikimedia project ever offered it's own Tor2Web implementation one could argue this could be an official link but I don't see it happening. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Deku-shrub:
a Wikipedia-space guide on accessing onion links
right, that's basically what I have in mind. The only problem is, someone may come along throwing the WP:NOTHOWTO guideline at it. Maybe the appropriate place for it is on Wikibooks, e.g.,
Guide to Tor hidden services and elements of the Tor network at Wikibooks or something similar. --Nanite (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Nanite: That wikibook looks like trash to me. I've created most of the Wikipedia linking standards (which you've improved upon!) and relevant articles. I think a guide would look more like Wikipedia:IRC and Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial. IRC's a good comparison as it features for example a range of 1st party (e.g. desktop client) and 3rd party (e.g. web chat) options Deku-shrub (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Deku-shrub:
- To be honest I've been trying to get a more liberal attitude towards onion links on Wikipedia for a couple of years now, it's only recently there are even a significant amount of white listed links at all to use as case studies such as the Facebook one. However Tor2Web is not the answer for routine Tor use, any more than a proxy (such as the sort I run) is a substitute for direct authoritative access. It's possible there should be a Wikipedia-space guide on accessing onion links which mentions Tor2Web and other non-standard protocol / domains which can be linked from the widget. Such a dedicated page could maybe offer a Tor2Web link if highly disclaimered. If the Wikimedia project ever offered it's own Tor2Web implementation one could argue this could be an official link but I don't see it happening. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
