Talk:List of Tor hidden services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

What to display in the web address field when we don't give a link[edit]

There is consensus that for at least some onion sites that we should not give a link to the site from the article. At Talk:The Hidden Wiki#Web address field in the infobox I have raised a question about what we should show in the infobox in place of a link in those cases, your views would be welcome there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

unsourced lists[edit]

WP policy: NO UNSOURCED items on lists. either they are a link to an article, or article section, or if no such link, a reliable source indicating the list items existence AND notability (even if not notable enough for an article). redlinks or unlinked items without sources should be removed. Qool Hakkurz dont get a pass on this rule.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable reference to Tor sites?[edit]

The problem:
  • Many TOR URLs have been removed, ostensibly for "lacking citation", but secondary sources are very much lacking when it comes to TOR.
Secondary sources generally do not list Tor hidden services.
And when they do, they're often outdated, or not the most comprehensive or accurate indexes.

The solution (maybe):
the URLs could be cited from an index like skunksworkedp2cg.onion.to/sites.html but the url is blacklisted
Scottr64 (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd open the discussion! --Sgutkind (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to provide information that isn't offered elsewhere -- however useful and well intentioned -- will generally run afoul of several Wikipedia policies. I don't want to be spammy or redundant, so will link to Talk:Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories where I said basically the same thing in more detail (before reading this talk page). --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What now?[edit]

how are Encyclopedia Dramatica and GlobaLeaks Indymedia The New Yorker's Strongbox (wait, they are accessible only through tor, but they are NOT a tor service, or are they?) Wikileaks tor hidden services? are we now adding any site which can be accessed by using some sort of tor based anomymous service? wouldnt that be everything on the net? the target articles dont mention tor, so why are they here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything on the net can be accessed by Tor, but some sites have set up .onion sites as well (such as those listed). They're functionally no different from the other hidden sites listed as far as I know -- they just aren't "hidden" in the typical sense of the word. --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is one major difference between normal and .onion sites, when you visit a .onion site your connection is encrypted. Scottr64 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. Then .onion would be the same as https or using a vpn, which it's certainly not. But what's your point? --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Separate offline and defunct[edit]

I have to say I disagree with breaking the list down with a separate section for "Offline and defunct." Offline is WP:RECENTISM unless it means the same as defunct, in which case I would point out it's notoriously difficult to find reliable sources about the status of a Tor hidden service (see Talk:The Hidden Wiki for example). --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Its just to try the actual .onion address for test purpose. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. original research. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
As with the template, no talk of this since I posted it more than a week ago, so restoring previous organization. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Carrying this response from my user talk page:
[The reason I changed it]: Because it's a navbox to help people navigate Tor-related subjects, not a guide to using Tor or accessing these sites. The manual of style section on navboxes additionally says that because they're horizontally formatted page elements you should restrict the number of categories/rows (basically that if there's something on a line by itself, there's a problem).
Separating defunct sites into a blanket "historical" section also removes all context the navbox otherwise provides (i.e. what kind of site it is). Other than serving as a guide to Tor, what purpose does separating them as such have? --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@David Hedlund: - The alternative you proposed on my talk page is to add "(defunct)" to the individual items without reorganizing it? That could make sense. I think the trick there will just be to do it so that it doesn't look bad. Seems like a good compromise, though. PS: I'm considering this thread to cover the same changes both here and at Template:Tor hidden services. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I see you made these changes. Would you mind doing the same at the Template? I do still think the status shouldn't be given unless it's properly sourced at the main article for that site, but this seems like a good way to go for now. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Yes check.svg Done --David Hedlund (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable entries in a list of websites here and in the template[edit]

I have to register my unease with including non-notable websites in a list on Wikipedia. In order to fit with WP:NOT, most lists on Wikipedia aren't supposed to be exhaustive, but rather be "encyclopedic" (effectively a reference to notability). For something like lists of websites, that almost always means list items are supposed to have their own Wikipedia article already. The other way to show notability some lists go by is to include sources which show that either the subject could have its own article -- or that it's notable but there's not quite enough information available to develop a stand-alone article (a tricky one because to be notable at all requires some kind of significant coverage in reliable sources). I'm not suggesting anything needs to be removed right now, but we should look for more sources to add (any reliable source that does more than just mention it).

I think if this is the way others want to go, it probably makes sense to include shot descriptions and sources with all of them, not just those without articles. A uniform appearance and it could potentially turn into a really nice list, I think. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:You may have noticed, I have only included 'list only' items with some decent sources. But having just a couple of decent sources doesn't always make for warranting its own article so I felt this was a nice compromise.
Also, if you're going to add small summaries to the items with their own articles, I'm not sure it's worth adding sources on this page as the sources used on this page should always be cited in more detail on the dedicated page. Adding them in both places creates maintenance work.
I think this is an approach that should be used on Draft:List of darknet markets which should then be split from this article.
Deku-shrub (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a couple descriptions, but I'll hold off doing anything else until I better understand what you mean.
You're suggesting draft:list of darknet markets would include descriptions and sources for all of them, and then for it to be a fork of this list? I don't follow why the descriptions/sources for markets with articles would make sense there but not here.
Aside from the initial time to do so, I don't see a downside to including descriptions/sources for everything, even if they exist at the article. I mean that's the ideal for all lists on Wikipedia, but for the most part it's just not worth it.
Re: "compromise" - I sort of agree, but think that it would be a whole lot better to have at least a second and/or third source for those that don't have articles. (I'm not going to remove them if those don't appear, but there wouldn't be a great argument against anyone who decided to do so). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:I propose that this section on darknet markets would be replaced with See list of darknet markets once it's complete.
I agree to adding descriptions for everything, but I suggest not using inline sources because of the maintenance commitment that will create. You might have to use 3 sources just to create a 10 word summary for instance. Applicable to items with their own article only.
This page is a good places to incubate as sites go from being notable enough to reliable source, through to notable enough to warrant their own article I feel Deku-shrub (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Which aspect of maintenance are you referring to? Do you mean that if a source is unavailable we have to update two articles? That it would be a hassle to add or replace a source if the description of a site significantly changes for whatever reason? Or that the code required for a citation makes the list messy to work with? I don't see the first two as something that happens frequently enough to be a concern. I agree with the latter as citations are currently done. In fact while I was adding that glut of text for the Free Haven sources, I figured I should pitch the idea of using named refs at the bottom instead (my personal preference for any article). That way instead of

* [[Free Haven]] - A distributed anonymous file storage system that places focus on persistent availability of data. The [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] students' work on the project led to collaboration with [[DARPA]] to develop Tor.<ref name="ieee">{{cite journal | url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527761.pdf | format=PDF | title=Deploying Low-Latency Anonymity: Design Challenges and Social Factors | last1=Dingledine | first1=R. | last2=Mathewson | first2=N. | last3=Syverson | first3=P. | journal=IEEE Security & Privacy | year=2007 | volume=5 | issue=5 | pages=83–87 | doi=10.1109/MSP.2007.108}}</ref><ref name="net working">{{cite book | title=Net Working/Networking: Citizen Initiated Internet Politics | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29Ucv7BU_DYC&pg=PA267 | publisher=University of Tampere | editor1-first=Tapio | editor1-last=Häyhtiö | editor2-last=Rinne | editor2-first=Jarmo | last=Jordan | first=Tim | chapter=The Politics of Technology: Three Types of 'Hacktivism' | year=2008 | pages=267 | isbn=9789514474644}}</ref><ref name="peertopeer">{{cite book | url=http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596001100.do | title=Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies | publisher=O'Reilly Media | author=Oram, Andy | year=2001}}</ref>

it would be

* [[Free Haven]] - A distributed anonymous file storage system that places focus on persistent availability of data. The [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] students' work on the project led to collaboration with [[DARPA]] to develop Tor.<ref name="ieee"/><ref name="net working"/><ref name="peertopeer"/>

with the ref stuff under the refs heading. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"Do you mean that if a source is unavailable we have to update two articles...Or that the code required for a citation makes the list messy to work with?" Yes, both of these reasons Deku-shrub (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the technique above not assuage concerns for the second? I really don't see the first as a big concern. If It starts happening that this happens on a regular basis, we can change it, but including sources is the ideal for lists and I'm volunteering to add them, so let's just see if it becomes an issue and, if so, I'll fix it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If I or any editor edits say any of the fully wikified articles to update the site's mission or description, 90% of the time they will not realise that there is an associated list page that will also need updating. As a result I do expect the site descriptions to go out of date over time. When this happens, it should be very easy to update the site descriptions en-mass, without having to either re-source the updated descriptions. Hence my hesitance to source on this page in that situation. If you want to source everything you can, but I have high hopes for this page's maintainability. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)