4 ms·

Yes, I understand that. I mean, why don't these censors block the whole wikipedia.org access then? If they don't want their population to access a Wikipedia to

Yes, I understand that. I mean, why don't these censors block the whole wikipedia.org access then? If they don't want their population to access a Wikipedia topic/article and can't block/determine if someone is accessing it, the easiest thing to do would be just block it right away. So why they won't do it? (PS: I'm in no way in favor of censorship, I'm just trying to understand such mindset)

foota 9y ago
Probably because they recognize the utility of Wikipedia.
- mirimir 9y ago
  As with GitHub.
hannob 9y ago
If you censor too much people may be pissed. It's much easier to decide "we censor specific articles about specific subjects" than "we censor all of wikipedia". Censoring a popular mainstream webpage may cause too much opposition. Maybe even the politicians who make the decision and their families like to look up things on wikipedia.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  But can't they just download the Wikipedia backup, purge the articles they don't like, and redirect the DNS lookup to a local copy? To the average citizen, it won't look much different than going to actual Wikipedia.
  - FreeFull 9y ago
    This is feasible, assuming the government is willing to pay for the hosting.
    - kijin 9y ago
      As well as forge an SSL certificate for *.wikipedia.org. Last time I checked, Wikipedia had HSTS enabled. So trying to forge their DNS without also forging their SSL certificate would be equivalent to total censorship for anybody who has previously visited Wikipedia.
      - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
        Assuming the government in question has access to a root certificate this should be possible.
        sqeaky 9y ago
        Even presuming it is possible, it still raises the cost of censorship. Simply raising that cost is a good thing.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Then https will force them to either extreme which I think is a good thing. No option to slowly raise the temperature so the frogs won't jump out of the pot.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Bakary 9y ago
They are currently creating a Wikipedia clone in China so I'm guessing they are allowing wikipedia only on a temporary basis.

foota 9y ago

Probably because they recognize the utility of Wikipedia.

mirimir 9y ago
As with GitHub.

hannob 9y ago

If you censor too much people may be pissed. It's much easier to decide "we censor specific articles about specific subjects" than "we censor all of wikipedia". Censoring a popular mainstream webpage may cause too much opposition. Maybe even the politicians who make the decision and their families like to look up things on wikipedia.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
But can't they just download the Wikipedia backup, purge the articles they don't like, and redirect the DNS lookup to a local copy? To the average citizen, it won't look much different than going to actual Wikipedia.
- FreeFull 9y ago
  This is feasible, assuming the government is willing to pay for the hosting.
  - kijin 9y ago
    As well as forge an SSL certificate for *.wikipedia.org. Last time I checked, Wikipedia had HSTS enabled. So trying to forge their DNS without also forging their SSL certificate would be equivalent to total censorship for anybody who has previously visited Wikipedia.
    - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
      Assuming the government in question has access to a root certificate this should be possible.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        Even presuming it is possible, it still raises the cost of censorship. Simply raising that cost is a good thing.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Then https will force them to either extreme which I think is a good thing. No option to slowly raise the temperature so the frogs won't jump out of the pot.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Bakary 9y ago

They are currently creating a Wikipedia clone in China so I'm guessing they are allowing wikipedia only on a temporary basis.