Talk:The Hidden Wiki/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2012

This article fails WP:GNG, and linking to the Hidden Wiki has previously been ruled out per consensus at Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network), as it contains links to material that would violate State of Florida law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

I feel it should be made known that, despite the news reports claiming that Anonymous has taken various hidden sites offline, this information is false. Even when this information was first reported back in 2011 it was false. If anyone had taken the time to check the Tor Directory (a TOR hidden service) back when these claims were originally made, they would have found that all of the affected sites were still listed as "online." In fact, if you check today, you'll find that none of the sites Anonymous supposedly eradicated are actually gone at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.244.217 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is often used as a means of facilitating illegal activity.[1]

This is not a quote from the article. "Often" does not appear in the srticle. The word "illegal" appears in a quote by Scott Terban. Is this the basis for this personal commentary? ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

The quote is not ideal for the WP:LEAD, which is designed to give a summary. Tor itself is not illegal in most countries, although it can have abusive purposes, as the Abuse FAQ explains. Likewise, the main page of The Hidden Wiki does not contain any illegal content. It does, however, contain a range of links, some of which are controversial as they are allegedly to sites offering the sale of drugs, child pornography etc. The Hidden Wiki is basically a web portal, as it is a collection of links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that that previous sentence, "It is often used as a means of facilitating illegal activity", is not the best citation and summary for the lead? The Hidden Wiki's shady character can be inferred from its dark character, but extra-legal is not illegal, and to say "often" based on the article cited is less than accurate. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

The lead was rewritten with a view to avoiding giving the reader two misleading impressions: a) Tor is illegal, which it is not in most democratic countries (The Legal FAQ for Tor Relay Operators) and b) The Hidden Wiki is a child porn website or sells drugs etc, when it does not. The Hidden Wiki is a straightforward collection of text links to other .onion sites, some legal, some probably not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they really had good intentions?

They called the operation "Darknet", which is a term that refers to the stuff on the internet that only authorized people know about. So they were aware people can put stuff online and keep it "in the dark"; then by scaring the people that were doing it in "the open", and providing them with a keyword to learn about how to do it in the dark, didn't they actually helped keep the stuff hidden from law enforcement? --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that when they called it "Darknet" they are referring to the hidden wiki as being the "darknet" and that the operation is too :take it down or something along those lines. In regards to them working against the government I cannot say. Nikolai508 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

While THW contains links to child pornography sites, the article implies that this is all or the majority of what it contains. Upon review, these links are in the minority. It also contains links to blogs, games, other anonymity services, forums, online gambling sites, file hosting, source code, addiction recovery, financial services (bitcoin, etc), anti-genital mutilation,... etc sites. It attempts to link everything in the darknet. Similar sites (yahoo directory, etc) do this for the clearnet. The wording and mood of this article seems to malign THW and TOR, even though they make every attempt to make no stance on the value the content they link.

The mainstream media had hardly ever mentioned Tor or The Hidden Wiki before the Operation Darknet controversy in late 2011. The four references in the article are about the limit of reliable sourcing for The Hidden Wiki. This article is not about Tor as a whole. The WP:LEAD section is careful not to say that all of the links on THW are illegal or immoral, but it is the links to child porn and drugs that have picked up the most media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, media bias has maligned THW for inclusion of controversial links to the point that it is difficult to source information on what THW really is. This is probably the best reason to include a link to THW directly, so the reader can see for themselves what it contains if they so desire. The fight against linking to the site directly, as well as only citing sources which point out controversy add together to create a bias in the reader which may misrepresent what THW is. THW linking to a site which gives instructions on making bombs is the equivalent of a public library having a card catalog with "The Anarchist Cookbook" under the subject heading "Bomb Making". All THW is, and tries to be, is a community which indexes TOR hidden services. This article and the citations it makes in no way represent that, but rather makes it out to be something sinister by citing biased media articles, which upon review, don't fully understand and misrepresent the purpose of the underlying TOR technology, and the purpose of THW, trying to equate THW with child abuse, using ominous moods to sway the emotions of the reader, and other reactionary methods to create bias in the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.236.42 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Logo + Screenshot of homepage?

I know it's pretty well agreed upon that we shouldn't post a link to the hidden wiki itself, but is it alright to have its logo or a screenshot of the home page, like on the Silk Road Article? BobThePlatypus (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A low-resolution screenshot with "Non-free web screenshot" tagging should be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous

The information from these so-called reliable sources isn't only misinformative, but disinformative in that they are publishing outright lies. This article is so carefully-crafted to be deceiving that good faith is implausible, and it appears to me to be part of a larger effort to turn public opinion against online anonymity. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has indeed issues. Half the background section is dedicated to a single person point of view quote, and has the opposite of an impartial tone. It should be replaced. Last, 2011 anti-child porn operation by Anonymous section is WP:NEWS, and thus need to be shorten and concentrated down to a few lines. Its not balanced to have half the article about Anonymous operation. In summery, do help and make the article better. Belorn (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is only as good as the RS that can be found. As mentioned above, the four references are about as good as it gets, and they all relate to the 2011 Operation Darknet controversy. The article is not intended to say that Tor is bad or dangerous, or that all .onion sites are bad and dangerous. It is hard to deny, though, that The Hidden Wiki offers links to controversial material. The article could be expanded, but the next complaint would be an "original research" tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If the only "reliable sources" are hit pieces, then maybe this topic isn't really notable to begin with. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I could do a try on search and books of google, but if there arent more than a news event, the article looks to be a new AFD. A article with a emotional tone, few sources, and focus on a single news event, is not enough to qualify as an article. Belorn (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects Pornography

Why on earth does The Hidden Wiki fall under the scope of WikiProjects Pornography? It's not pornographic. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki is not a porn site, but is known for its links to a range of .onion porn sites. On the issue of notability mentioned above, THW just about makes it over the line with WP:GNG, but there is not a lot to say beyond stub class with the sourcing available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The tag is a bit sketchy. Should an infamous reputation being enough to qualify for that scope? some thoughts get drawn to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Belorn (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It has links to most known hidden services of all categories. Usenet carries petabytes of actual pornography of all sorts, and is uncontroversially considered to not be within that scope, but an obscure hidden service that almost nobody has heard of, is unreachable without special software, and links to a handful of other hidden services is somehow helpful to people wanting information about pornography? 88.75.168.67 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the categories were removed. The surprising thing about this article is that it is receiving around 2000 views per day, [1], which is far more than might have been expected for such a short article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to have a neutral article. What we have now is terrible, and a disservice to the readers. 188.103.60.214 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that wikipedia itself links to many more pornography related sites than this small wiki in .onion space. Does Wikipedia deserve this tag?64.134.130.45 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The Hidden Wiki is lucky to have an article at all, given the very limited range of sourcing. A detailed article is difficult when there is so little to go on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It would be better to have no article than one that serves as an echo chamber for those wanting to manufacture support for criminalizing censorship-resistant communication. 88.75.123.240 (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of new articles with information on THW that could be cited for more neutrality:

Mail & Guardian: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-12-21-00-wtf-the-internets-secretive-hangouts

Newsbomb: http://www.newsbomb.gr/technologia/story/261464/to-xerate-oti-yparhei-ena-skoteino-internet-opoy-den-ehoyme-prosvasi

Books which can be cited for more neutrality:

Enter the Dark Net, Section: "How to Get In, Entry Points": books.google.com/books?id=0H16gkhiu8gC

Deep Web Secrecy and Security, Section 6: Using Hidden Networks: books.google.com/books?id=P0BNcWEWWBsC

Cyber Crime and Espionage: An Analysis of Subversive Multi-Vector Threats, pp 190.: books.google.com/books?isbn=1597496138

Anonymous: How Hacktivists are helping our society, pp. 5.1.7: books.google.com/books?id=nwuYlCZEE8IC

64.134.130.45 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects Computing

It appears that WikiProjects Websites is a descendant of WikiProjects Computing. Does that mean that there is no need for THW to be a part of the parent WikiProject? For example, WikiProjects Computing is a decendant of WikiProject Technology, but we don't list that here. I've seen other WP articles handled in the same way, not having the parent WikiProjects listed. 94.222.102.25 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I just looked at the code. It's all part of one WikiProject, so it looks alright with the one WikiProject listed and the parent, WikiProject Computing, isn't listed. 94.222.102.25 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tor hidden services template

The Template:Tor hidden services was reverted because Wikipedia is not a directory, and most of the articles are redlinks. Many of these are unlikely to satisfy WP:GNG as they lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to site

This was discussed previously at Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#Onion_links_in_the_external_links_section and Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#I_am_removing_the_links_to_the_hidden_wiki_for_now. Links containing material illegal under State of Florida law, or clear explanations of how to find it, are unsuitable per WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, OK. I wasn't aware of that. __meco (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was not why the site was removed (and blacklisted). You can find that discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011#Hidden_wiki. The marked reason for removal was that the hidden wiki did not meet any of the criteria for a good source, and was actively spammed at the tor project article. The discussion about the legality of sites that has links to other sites with illegal material is not a clear cut case. The common argument here would be to mention Google or bit-torrent sites, but I think we can leave that discussion and just look what the value of adding the link would be. Is it worth all the vandalism problems if we would add the controversy link? I think the added value of the link would not be high, given the stability of the site (denial of service attacks), and the fact that its a public wiki with content that can be changed at any moment. In my view, the fact its a public wiki is the strongest argument against including it. WP:EL#Official_links is very clear that official links not under the control of the subject (organization or individual person) are normally to be avoided. Belorn (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

minor disclaimer. If anyone do feel there is a legal issue here, do contact the legal team of Wikipedia foundation. Any unclear legal case should be brought there as they has the deciding power to define what is an legal issue for the project. Read WP:LEGAL for more details. Belorn (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading that correctly. If we interpret the rule as you are interpreting it, that would mean links to facebook, 9gag, 4chan, ebaum's world, or any other site in which the site's content is under the control of someone besides the sites owner would be non-linkable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.236.42 (talk) 19 October 2012

Links to .onion sites fail a range of WP:EL guidelines, which is why XLinkBot reverts them automatically. They cannot be accessed in a standard browser, are up one day and down the next, have unstable content and lack professional editorial oversight in a manner similar to blogs. Anyone determined to find the link to the main page of THW will not be troubled for very long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Refutations:

• .onion sites can be accessed via a standard browser using a gateway such as kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion.to. WWW browser-compatible links are also being removed.
• Stability is relative. The Hidden Wiki has been up and stable for YEARS. Links are always changing as sites change. When a site does go down in the normal webspace, we change the link or remove as a matter of course within the article. Most of these restrictions were put in place to create good links to content about a subject, not links to the subject itself. This should probably be clarified within the guidelines.
• We are not linking to the content, we are linking directly to the subject, not to content ABOUT the subject. The "professional eitorial oversight" on The Hidden Wiki most similar to that of Wikipedia than a blog, but that is irrelevant, as we are linking to the subject, not content about the subject.
• Anyone can find the site linked from google, as you have said, so why should it somehow be wrong for us to post a similar link?
  
  

I feel the arguement and controversy over this particular link is related directly to the inclusion of links to third party sites which contain data illegal in some (if not most) jurisdictions. In all actuality the opinion sited in the article that it is a "haven" for pedophiles is wrong. The Hidden Wiki is a first jumping off point for most people who browse hidden service sites, no matter what their interest. Child pornographers are going to be spending their time using sites that have child pornography content, not hanging around a small list of links. The percentage of links to unpopular information about things like bomb making, child pornography, and drug manufacture are relatively small compared to the number of links to other sites. The Hidden Wiki is no more than a wiki based directory to hidden services of all types. People who make the jump of "Onion == Child Porn" are grossly misinformed about the technology and are listening to cultural memes more than facts about TOR. While CP does exist within the TOR network, the same can be said for the www dataspace. TOR is a tool used by those who wish to retain their anonymity in a world in which anonymity and freedom are quickly fading. Without anonymity, a dissenting unpopular opinion is quickly punished by the masses, even if it is right. Grasping at straws and trying to build a strawman to give legitimacy to why it should be removed is a poor mans way to squelching things not politically correct. (read as censorship). The "anonymous" attacks 1) didn't succeed and 2) were misdirected efforts against The Hidden Wiki, even though it contained no illegal content. I think this article should be flagged for bias. Perhaps a controversy section should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.236.42 (talk • contribs)

This edit had a problem with WP:NOLEGAL. Wikipedia articles cannot offer legal advice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. No legal precedent or legislation has been found nor presented which would indicate that linking to a site which links to sites which contain illegal material is in itself illegal. Therefore, there it appears doing so would be legal by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.236.42 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the link until real cause (not just strawman arguments to enforce your Politically Correct stances) can be shown as to why it should not be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.236.42 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Revisited

I don't see why we aren't linking to this site per WP:OFFICIAL. .onion links were blacklisted due to spamming/phishing issues, but official links can be whitelisted as was done for Silk Road was. If there are legal issues the WMF will let remove it, but it's not up to us to decide. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, links to sites that link to illegal material are a grey area legally. I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to give a link for the purposes of facilitating copyright violations for example. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused - does a link to a directory that could include illegal content violate Wikipedia policy, or not? There seems to be a wide array of opinion. I'm fairly sure that "I'm just pointing the way" is not a legal defense. (please don't read that as a threat; I'm raising the issue because I want to know the answer.) My two cents, if you want them, are to remove the link just to be on the safe side. Please let me know what you think. Treybien (talk) 1:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Offline in January 2014

The site has been offline since mid-January with no sign of it returning. However, the address given in this edit is not the official address and admits that it is a mirror. There are several mirrors of The Hidden Wiki, and the KPVZ version is the official one. The article should not give mirrors as the official address, but if the outage becomes prolonged it may be necessary for the wording in the article to mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "new" Hidden Wiki has a quote from the site admin, which says "Hello, Dear Visitors! Since the KPVZ Hidden Wiki is down for a while now, we noticed an increase in our traffic, which is of course totally understandable. I would like to personally welcome everyone here, on this... well, currently a Hidden Wiki Mirror, but who knows what will happen in the future? I'm confident that the KPVZ will be back shortly. We saw downtimes in the past too, even heard gossips about the admin's arrest... fortunately none of those news were real. I'm sure this case isn't different: KPVZ is having some technical problems, and will be back shortly, don't worry. If not... well, that's another topic, and we're (fortunately) not there yet."

This means that the site is not claiming official status, it is only a mirror. Also, as the admin points out, it is unclear what has happened to the KPVZ version, and if or when it might return. There are several mirrors of the Hidden Wiki, and one should not be given preferential treatment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't link to unofficial sites/mirrors, and the existence of one doesn't mean The Hidden Wiki is online. That said, I can't tell which address is right as it seems to be switching between several. Is there a reliable place to check the status and current .onion address on the normal web? (i.e. do they have a Twitter, for example, such that someone wouldn't have to be on Tor or use e.g. Tor2Web to check?) --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated in one of the sections above, the correct address is kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion dot to (the .to part allows access in a standard browser, otherwise Tor is needed). The official version of the site is offline at the moment; it may or may not return, although long outages have been known in the past. AFAIK, there is not a Twitter feed or similar. There needs to be a lookout kept here to ensure that mirror sites and scam alternatives are not being portrayed as the official version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's back up (today, anyway). It had probably been down for around two weeks, which is nothing unusual for a .onion site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Website online/offline updates

Ok, this is redundant to my edit summary from a moment ago but please stop adding moment-by-moment updates. Even if you did your homework beyond assuming "hey it's down for me so it must be down," when you update based on your own experience, that's original research and recentism, neither of which are fitting for Wikipedia. If you have a reliable secondary source that talks about its status, go for it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

With .onion sites there is a problem because access to them is not reliable at the best of times. Also, the use of proxies is even less reliable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, you're adding an argument to why it shouldn't be changed, right? I agree completely that the issue of "is it down for everyone or just me" is exacerbated by "is it the site or is it the network" difficulties. Either way, reliable sources should be given when changing it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Onion sites do not use the standard Domain Name System. They are created by editing the torrc file in Tor.[2] This produces a site with accessibility that is less than 100% reliable. It may take 5 to 60 seconds to access an onion site (if you are lucky). There are not many reliable sources that track the online status of onion sites due to their inherent unreliability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and just about any other core policy page, if there aren't reliable sources, then it's not something for Wikipedia to cover. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, the only way to check whether an onion site is online is to visit it. All onion sites are known to have dubious reliability, and long outages are normal. There is no need to check whether The Hidden Wiki is online every day, although it was offline for around two weeks in January. This is hard to cite reliably, and if there are future outages someone will undoubtedly turn up and edit the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New URL

Since Doxbin took over the kvpz onion domain today and redirects it to Doxbin, what should the link be replaced with? 109.201.154.183 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a strange situation. The kpvz address is now showing Doxbin (a place for posting personal and often confidential records), so there is no Hidden Wiki at the moment. There is no reliable sourcing on this for the time being. The longstanding policy of this article is that mirror sites are not the official version, and that only the kpvz version should be linked. Let's see how this develops.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

With such an uncertain status and so much sketchiness hanging in the balance for unwary readers, I just removed the link until we can figure it out here. I'd encourage anyone else to undo those who might put in various .onion addresses without some kind of source. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

child abuse images vs child pornography

The source says "images of child abuse." Shouldn't the article say that? 49.244.244.158 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, for consistency with the source. Some people dislike the term "child pornography" and say that it is inaccurate and should not be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an entire article on that wiki devoted to child pornography, so it's certainly accurate. The problem is that the source doesn't directly say so. We should be able to find a source that does. Additionally, I've examined the source a little further and I'm concerned about using the term "link to." The source says:

"...Lolita City, a website advertised on the Hidden Wiki that offered gigabytes of images of child abuse to paying paedophiles."

"The site does not just help paedophiles, who are even offered advice on creating new secure websites to distribute more images of child abuse."

Notwithstanding the heavy bias of the source, should we be using words like "advertise" or "offer advice on" instead of "link to" regarding the child abuse images? Note that the second quote doesn't even have anything to do with linking to anything. Is the first quote enough to justify saying that The Hidden Wiki links to child abuse images? 94.222.78.93 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hack

If you paid any attention, the site was hacked recently and after a several days it was redirected to a Hidden Wiki mirror cleansed of CP. I'd be surprised if there was no mention of it in the media.-41.186.44.14 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"The site was hacked" = Doxbin claimed to have done this.[3] At the time of writing, the kpvz version is redirecting to the zqkt version. What happened here may never be known or reliably sourced, but it is clear that something happened. Some additional coverage here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason of the hack is explained here, on Doxbin website. Apparently, the admin of the zqkt hidden wiki suggested a deal to Doxbin by email that is to take down the official Hidden Wiki and make the kpvz address to redirect to his. In exchange, he has pledged to remove all the child porn content on his wiki, thing that has already been done since the day of the hack of the kpvz hidden wiki.--Dauntur ^{(talk to me)}

Since most people who are into cheese pizza don't want to edit the article because it's locked, I'd like to ask one of the registered Wikipedians to add the infornation about the hack. It's important for people to know that they're being redirected to a mirror controlled by hackers.--24.108.20.228 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following. What exactly can be said for certain? I guess this raises the issue about including links to Tor sites in general (not related to pornography -- just the integrity of a given .onion site going where you think it's going). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia content guideline for external links already covers mostly the issue of Hijacked sites. We treat it as a deadlink per WP:ELDEAD. The technical differences between a regular domain hijacking and a hidden service domain hijacking is unlikely to be significant. Belorn (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty significant though (if not in this case then in general). Other external links are registered by licensed registrars, hosted on computers with identifiable addresses, and otherwise identifiable. Maybe it's because I'm not technically familiar enough with the workings of hidden services servers, but it seems to me the nature of them would be that it would be nearly impossible to determine with certainty if the "official" [hidden] site changed addresses unless announced through some credible off-Tor blog, maybe. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A non-TOR website can have their domain hijacked if their webserver get compromised, and there is no obvious way to determine with certainty if the original owners still have control over content or not. This is why some software projects keep Cryptographic hash in an external place to verify that such modification has not yet happen. With TOR, a intruder would has to do the exact same compromising to the webserver, and the defense available is the same as outside TOR. The only difference which I can see is the willingness of the owner to speak out in media/social media that their domain is now hijacked. Belorn (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Url History

The KPVZ wiki was not the original Hidden Wiki. The earliest known Hidden Wiki was located at 6sxoyfb3h2nvok2d.onion and went down in June 2007. It was relaunched at the url oldd6th4cr5spio4.onion by someone under the alias Matt and then went down May 2009. After that kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion was launched by ion and became the most commonly used Hidden Wiki until it was hacked and the private key was posted publicly, making it possible for anyone to steal the .onion domain.
Although the kpvz onion is controlled by hackers and now points to zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion, this is an outdated mirror of the kpvz7ki2v5agwt35 wiki that went down in early March 2014. Since the open pedophilia and child porn scare many away, newer Hidden Wikis made the decision to not allow this content. I would suggest adding some of the up-to-date wikis that are commonly used to this article under external links: torwiki4wrlpz32o.onion hwiki2tzj277eepp.onion and allyour4nert7pkh.onion/wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayeyemen (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: The zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion is NOT controlled by hackers. And it's neither 'outdated'. It is the legitimate successor of the (now defunct) KPVZ Wiki, and almost the only one which allows open editing. (Check the Statistics of the page, it IS the main Wiki now.)

Here, it's admin clears things up, and answering all the questions: http://redd.it/24uq96 The user above just trying to play off the original, to get more visitors to his own clones. Check the above reddit link, check the stats... I'm staying with the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.149.238 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yupp, that reddit post is a pretty good (must read) post for anyone who's interested in what really happened recently. It's worth reading it.

189.101.33.7 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The Reddit post is interesting but has obvious issues with WP:SPS. It isn't in dispute that THW has been through various incarnations, despite the lack of reliable sourcing. The kpvz version now looks to be redundant, with a redirect to the zqkt version. The problem, though, is sourcing it reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Social media posts as sources is very dubious to use. The post content do look authentic, but I would wait a bit in hope for either a better source or more collaborating SPS's. Belorn (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

illegal content

i just thought it should be pointed out that the hidden wiki does not actually contain any illegal content, it just contains user posted links to sites that do. also i am new to wiki editing, how do i cite things which i have gained from first hand experience on tor/the hidden wiki? 92.40.254.203 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing personal experience would be original research. There is not much in the way of reliable secondary sourcing about The Hidden Wiki, and blog pieces are not suitable sources either. Please also bear in mind that per a discussion at Talk:Tor (anonymity network), a link to the site itself should not be given. Some reasonably OK sourcing is at Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, im not sure if the link to pastebin is ok? because i found a reference to it here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/24/anonymous_fight_child_abuse_network/ but i wasnt sure whether to cite the article or the source the article cited. I have also removed some links that were already there as i felt the articles were written by people without a full understanding of the subject and so werent really necessary. 87.115.175.193 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The link to pastebin could possibly serve as an external link, however any interpretation of it would qualify as original research. I reverted your changes because while the newspaper articles may not be entirely tech-savvy, they are reliable sources and, as ianmacm points out, it will be hard to get other reliable sources. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was expanded and cleaned up a bit. The link to the pastebin dump of the names is not ideal, as it is a form of primary source material, although it can be found through the existing references.

BTW, it is hopefully a statement of the obvious that The Hidden Wiki is nothing to do with Wikipedia, but given the number of times it has been necessary to explain that WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia, some people might still think this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Um not true Wikileaks and HiddenWiki are part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.86.1 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Re this edit: http://hidden-wiki.com/ is not the HW website, so it should not be given in the infobox. Also, the address for the .onion site at http://hidden-wiki.com/ is not the known version. There are now several mirrors all claiming to be the genuine version, and this site should not be given precedence. It is important to avoid giving a casual reader the impression that http://hidden-wiki.com/ is linked to the official version when there is no evidence that this is the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how an anonymous livelyblog (cited as reference #2, used in the dating section) can in any way be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Is anything better available?JamesG5 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing here is not much better, because it does not directly support the claim that THW was launched in 2005. All of this has been removed unless better sourcing is found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hidden Hacked Wiki and misleading external link

As some of you may or may not know, Ion's Hidden Wiki was hacked and his kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion was stolen by these hackers. Good friend's of Ion say he was always easy to get a hold of, until he was hacked and ultimatley exposed. Now the hackers that are currently in control of the hidden wiki are just linking people to scam websites to attempt to swindle the userbase out of money in the form of bitcoins. I've even seen phishing pages posted for days on the Main Page of this wiki. Also the wiki it redirects to now is not community editable at all, even though it claims to be.

Currently the most trusted and active Hidden Wiki on Tor is: deepwikizpkrt67e.onion (The only rule they have is no child porn). They are community based (to get an account email the administrator) while the admin and many other users write in depth articles about security and many other subjects.
Other wikis include: kpvz7kpmcmne52qf.onion (which is known as The Uncensored Hidden Wiki), it is known for censoring absolutely nothing, including chilld porn and pages contributing to terrorism. And another one recommended by the reddit community is "All You're Wiki" - allyour4nert7pkh.onion/wiki which is also a child porn free wiki. Many of these wiki's that exist are always outdated, filled with dead links, or just generally unmaintained. An example of a outdated wiki filled with scams would be kpvzqvzyooocvs7u.onion Listed above are only the top used and most maintained.

Also the External links "Complete Guide to the Secret Services of The Hidden Wiki." link is NOT the tor hidden wiki at all. This link should be removed and replaced with an up to date and trusted wiki. Or worse comes to worse, just put back up the hacked link to the hidden wiki that hackers now have control over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.240.6 (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

--

The problem is that since the kpvz version was apparently hacked, there has been no generally agreed "official" link to THW, as there are several versions all claiming to be the successor. Another problem is sourcing. Reddit, blogs etc are not considered to be reliable sources, while the personal experience of editors is original research. In view of this, I have removed all of the external links for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can verify I am successor of Ion's wiki, any proof I can provide let me know please, Ion is on our team but is laying low after he was hacked and threatened to be doxxed by ZQKTL 69.116.106.151 (talk)

You did the right thing, Ian. Let the user do his own research, and find the Wiki for himself. That way, there won't be any arguments here anymore. I'm sticking with the ZQKTL version, because that's where the whole community went, and that is the only one which resembles the 'original' one. (I'm not counting new 'wikis' which are started 2-3 weeks ago, because do not forget: everybody can create a new wiki, with the only purpose of hosting his own malicious links.) That 'controlled by hackers' thing is plain bullsh!t, these words are used by only the ones who are wanting to discredit the biggest HW site for selfish reasons. No sign of hackers there.

We did not start our 2-3 weeks ago, we have been online before ZQKTL wiki even existed as a back to ion's wiki, and that's why we were able to mirror so many of his articles ZQKTL is missing. Same with those other wikis. ZQKTL also allows child porn and terrorism, decision is up to you honestly on what wiki to choose. 69.116.106.151 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Before anybody accepts any 'proof', do not forget that the old Hidden Wiki database was leaked, so anybody may have a full, working copy of it. We prefer not to 'choose' a wiki, (it will be an endless argument), let the user do his own research. The old wiki is gone, Ion has also gone. Anybody who says otherwise, is an impostor, without any reliable source. If the previous poster has a site that is so old, where has it been before? I guess he will come up with an address that no one knows about, because it will be some fresh, new installation. (And no: uploading the old database with the old statistics will not do.) Scammers are really trying EVERYTHING to defame the working sites and steal the spotlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.78.253 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

195.62.78.253 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from the page history, now that he has been exposed, Deepwiki owner quickly found a new proxy, and deleting every bad reference for his site in panic. I'm sure he will also delete this one. Do anybody need more proof that this whole discrediting, framing section is just his groundless work, nothing more? The HW is otherwise working fine. No hackers, no framing, no terrorists. The most beautiful part of the Wikipedia is that nobody is able to delete things completely. History will always be here.

So, once again: By the Way, the IP address used by the poster who claims he has got proof (69.116.106.151) is the same IP who made some advertisement today for the Deepwiki site (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2014_celebrity_photo_leaks&diff=prev&oldid=626663293), the address he advertised is redirecting to the DeepWiki site (which is a known scamming site, where the owner also hosts scamming services on the same server.)

This whole section (The Hidden Hacked Wiki and misleading external link) has been created by the Deepwiki guy... so much for proofs. He is using different proxy IPs to hide the fact he's talking with himself. I guess it's time to close this thread, it's clearly nothing more than one man's work to create confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.78.253 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Not linking to any Wiki here is much better than linking to some scammer's private playground. So thank you, Ian. Just keep it that way in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.78.253 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

Hi,I would like to add the original link of the hidden wiki,is it possible?thank you Balkanm (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

what do you mean the original link? there is already a link that explains how to reach the site Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As of 2014, there is no generally agreed link to The Hidden Wiki (see various discussions above). The kpvz version now redirects to the zqkt version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that per policy, it is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link. Thus if we were to link anywhere, it would be to the zqkt version. That said, the current site and the one that is referenced by sources is no longer under the control of the same organization or individual person. As a official link, that makes it a very complicated issue. Belorn (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref talk in article

I came to the article and found little of use. Then I had the idea of checking out the talk section and I learned a lot. I think there is a strong argument in a case like this for referencing the talk article in the article article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest official link

@Ianmacm: I see you removed the 'official' link I added. Here's why I call it the official link:

• The old official domain kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion redirects there
• 3x 'about the hidden wiki' sites link there
• All the forums (yes not RS) cite this as being the first ever official successor to the HW

I cannot find comparable levels of coverage of any other hidden wiki mirrors. As a result I think this is a enough information to mark this as the official successor. Deku-shrub (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about this on the talk page. It is hard to say what the official link is today as there are several competing versions. In any case, the use of the nowiki tag in this edit was designed to ensure that the edit would save. Without it, there would be a warning that the edit would not save because all .onion sites are on the blacklist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's one thing to mention the addres in the infobox for informational purposes, but using nowiki seems to subvert the point of the blacklist. In any event when there is any doubt at all I support omitting .onions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nooo, I want onions, I use them a lot :( Deku-shrub (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion ongoing instability

Visiting 'the old hidden wiki' site here, I think the onion key must still be leaked and redirecting. I've encountered 3x different results going here:

• The FBI seizure page
• A redirect to zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page - what I consider the new hidden wiki
• A redirect to another wiki with a different style home page

I recommend not using this link! Deku-shrub (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Web address field in the infobox

Currently this states that the web address was "removed due to policy". I feel this is poor choice for two reasons:

• The infobox is about the topic of the article, not the article. The web address has been removed from the article, the site continues to have a web address (I presume).
• Per WP:SELFREF we shouldn't be linking to project space pages from articles, not least because many mirrors do not include that namespace.

I am not proposing adding the address back, but we should if possible just remove that field from the infobox. If that is not possible, we should put some sort of factual, neutral, non-self-referential note there instead. Perhaps something like "[note 1]" in the field, linking to a note at the bottom of the template, saying something like "not included for legal reasons" (if those are the reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is also discussed at Talk:The_Hidden_Wiki#Link_to_site. Links to .onion sites as a whole fail WP:EL, and there has also been a long debate about the suitability of giving the link to the Silk Road at Talk:Silk Road (marketplace).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point. Those sections are about whether to link to the site. My issue is that given we have decided not to link what do we display in the infobox instead of the link. I'll will though add pointers to this discussion at other tor site article talk pages as we should do the same for all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My own view is that .onion sites fail a range of WP:ELNO guidelines. This has not stopped the link to the Silk Road from appearing in the current version of the article. Overall, it is best just not to give the links to these sites in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again I agree with you but that's not the point. Given that we don't include a link in the infobox, what do we include instead? My view is that the current "link removed" wording is bad, what do you think? Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the consensus is not to have the link to The Hidden Wiki given in this article. The infobox is Template:Infobox website, which would normally allow for a field showing the URL. Onion links are not URLs in the strict sense of the term because they require a special browser, which is one of the reasons why they fail WP:ELNO. The current field for the URL has a HTML note saying -- Please do not add a link to the site, as it fails Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. --. This is probably sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree that we shouldn't have the link, as I've repeatedly said. I see now that it has simply been removed, which I also agree with, but when I started this discussion there was a field in the infobox that said "Web address" and then said "Link removed due to policy" with a link to the Wikipedia policy. It was this that I was objecting to, not the absence of a link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good solution for editors, but not for readers. Information why Wikipedia does not have a link to website is IMHO necessary.--Rezonansowy (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If we include information then it must be done in a way that avoids self-references and links to project space as those would break things for re-users, print versions, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

God damn it, we went over this at talk:Silk Road (marketplace). The reason the link is there is because it was decided that including a link to the thing being discussed in no way violates Wikipedia policy. ELNO does not apply, because it's an official link. Put the link back, and stop screwing around. Quantum Burrito (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically, what Quantum Burrito says .. The official link does not violate our policies and guidelines. The problem was, that the real .onion links were constantly replaced with fake ones, etc. That resulted in the whole of .onion being blacklisted. But that does not mean that specific .onion-links, official .onion links can not be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If the article can't have a link because of legal reasons, SELFREF is perfectly fine in stating that specific fact. Like with the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case which is referenced in SELFREF in the very first section, we could write: "Due to legal concerns, the url of the website is not being included in this article or at this time.". Simple. Belorn (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What legal reasons? Unless there is an OTRS ticket or someone from WMF who made a statement that it actually is illegal to have that link, I do not think that it is illegal by itself, therefore, the link should be there. Again, it does not fail WP:EL to have the official site linked from the subject, see WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully. I merely wanted to answer the original question that *if* the reason is because of legal, SELFREF do allow us to say just that. If people want to exclude it because of legal reason, they should create a OTRS ticket or/and contact WMF like you say. Belorn (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't post the url, then can't a sha5 fingerprint of the hash work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.24 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk: The Hidden Wiki

The recent revision of this Article, does not make sense.

Birdymckee (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Birdymckee

@Birdymckee: You'll need to be more specific as to what you see as the problem(s).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016: Typo in upper right template about 'ambigiously' forked Current status

In the Current status section (upper right Template), there is a typo: ambiguously is misspelled ambigiously. Minor edit.

Lhommearsène (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Hidden Wiki" is not the name of several wikis!

The reference article [4] was written at November 15, 2014. At that time, The Hidden Wiki was hacked by a cracker and the cracker shut the site down, so there were many wikis that stole the name, "The Hidden Wiki." But now The Hidden Wiki runs normally. The site just changed its domain. If you try to connect the site's old domain(kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion) by Tor Browser, the site will redirect you to the new domain. It means there is only one The Hidden Wiki. Other wiki sites that have the same name are just name pirates. --Hackurplace (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The old key was leaked, the redirect is unreliable Deku-shrub (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that in March 2014, the Tor hidden service file known as private_key [5] for the kpvz Hidden Wiki fell into the hands of hackers. This led to the kpvz version going offline for a while, and during this period various mirrors sprung up, all claiming to be viable successors to the Hidden Wiki. This situation persists even today. Eventually, the kpvz version returned and now redirects to the zqkt version. I'm not going to get into the argument over which is the official version, because the status of the site is now a lot vaguer than it once was. The zqkt version could at best be seen as a successor to the kpvz version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree to your opinion. No one knows whether the owner of kpvz Hidden Wiki and the owner of zqkt Hidden Wiki are same or not, but the zqkt Hidden Wiki is the successor to the kpvz Hidden Wiki. I think who is the owner of the wiki is not important. The fact is that zqkt wiki has the same name, the same design, the almost same articles to kpvz Hidden Wiki, and the private_key file of kpvz Hidden Wiki. If B web site has the same name, the same design, the almost same articles, and the same domain name comparing to A web site, we can call B web site is a successor to A web site! --Hackurplace (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Seams somebody has been cleaning up the "dark web" recently, thank goodness.

My first test of the Tor Browser software was to browse to the Hidden wiki, which supposedly is a long list of links, for every site in Tor-space. That was several years ago, and I remember there like 5 to 10 links for very obviously named child porn sites (the site names were a dead giveaway as to what would be on the sites). Needless to say I did NOT browse to those sites, and in fact ended up deleting Tor Browser (figuring nothing good would come from accessing Tor). It's been several year since then, and I decided to check to see if any of that crap has been cleaned up, so I used Tor Browser again and went to The Hidden Wiki again, and this time there are ZERO websites with names or descriptions that would indicate any relation to child porn. So it seems that somebody has cleaned up The Hidden Wiki (not sure if the original sites in question have been taken down yet, or if only the links on The Hidden Wiki have been removed). Animedude5555 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up since 2014 Deku-shrub (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki link update 2020/2021

TOR will drop old V2 addresses in 2021 so here's is the V3 address of the site. The updated link for the hidden wiki is : zqktlwiuavvvqqt4ybvgvi7tyo4hjl5xgfuvpdf6otjiycgwqbym2qad.onion/wiki/Main_Page You can see that the old kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion domain redirects there and zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion will display the new V3 link onsite if you visit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamarsvg (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

The old kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion redirected to zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion for years and now it redirects to : zqktlwiuavvvqqt4ybvgvi7tyo4hjl5xgfuvpdf6otjiycgwqbym2qad.onion, maybe we should add that to the article. Also here's the hidden wiki admin's explanations as to what happened after Doxbin hacked the kpvz wiki : https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/24uq96/zqktlw_hidden_wiki_admin_here_trying_to_clear_up/ Lamarsvg (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)