Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits? Let that sink in.
C. On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 05:31, J. Hellenthal <jhellent...@dataix.net> wrote: > ... because you should be able to verify the site you are at is actually > the site you intended to be at... > > Let the old crap go. Besides the sheer amount of ppl left that have the > older phones most likely are not going to Wikipedia anyway. > > -- > J. Hellenthal > > The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says > a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > > > On Dec 31, 2019, at 04:05, John Adams <j...@retina.net> wrote: > > > > because no one should know what you read about or check out at wikipedia > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes < > mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > >> > >> Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t > work why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP. > >> > >> This seems like security for no valid reason. >
