Talk:Free Haven Project

Opening section
Just took a look at this article for the AfD discussion. Currently, the opening paragraph mentions the Free Haven Project, but not Free Haven, which is the article's title. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that the article title should be explained in the opening paragraph, listed in bold. If Free Haven is meant as a shorthand name for Free Haven Project, then both terms should be used in the opening sentence, explained with something like "The Free Haven Project, sometimes called Free Haven, ..." On the other hand, if it's meant as a software system, created by an organization called the Free Haven Project, then the distinction should be explained. As it is, the current opening sentence doesn't give any idea of what Free Haven Project is...whether it was an organization, a research project, a software system, or whatever. The 2001 paper uses both terms, and sometimes refers to the "Free Haven system" to clarify what they're talking about, but the terminology seems generally unclear there as well. Agyle (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As I mentioned in of my edit summaries the article should really be Free Haven Project. A case could be made that either is notable, but doesn't merit a second stand-alone article. The software/system/network is Free Haven. Developed by the Project (which, as with many organizations that include the word "project," "organization," etc. in their name, is sometimes shortened to the less generic part of the name. I agree this should be avoided in an encyclopedia article, though. I'm going to go ahead and boldly move the article to rename it and will take a look at the name use in the article shortly. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I think the uses of "Free Haven" and "Free Haven Project" are distinct now. Feel free to further clarify. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not as confident that Free Haven Project is notable; this Wikipedia article has almost no information on the project, and what little it has relies on primary sources for information about the project, while citing secondary sources for information about their software. Most of the secondary sources seem to mention the FHP in passing in a single sentence. this reference provides minor independent coverage, although it is not used in the Wikipedia article (it's cited, but everything in the sentence is more clearly verified with the primary source).


 * Clarity is definitely improved, though there still aren't explicit definitions in the intro, and the article doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidance on lead sections (WP:LEAD). I would suggest explicitly stating what Free Haven Project is (or was), and what Free Haven is, in the first sentence or two, with both terms in bold. I would clarify the definitions myself, but I can't find a reliable source on this, and don't want to make up unverifiable material. Agyle (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements on current status
The end of the current version of the article makes unreferenced statements in the present tense; these need to cite a verifiable, reliable source. (Current sentences: "Since 2005, Free Haven has also been funded by the Omidyar Network, the International Broadcasting Bureau and Reporters without Borders. Free Haven hosts Tor as well as the Mixminion Type III anonymous remailer.") Also, the last sentence is unclear in what sense Free Haven hosts Tor and Maxminion; for example, it could mean an organization called Free Haven provides web hosting space for these other software projects, or that such an organization provides internet-connected computers to run those non-web services, or that the distributed Free Haven network contains information on those projects. Agyle (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Funding was part of the cite earlier in the paragraph. Cited it again. It doesn't mention RWB though, and I can't remember where I saw that, so I took it out for now. I know absolutely nothing about Mixminion. That line is a remnant of the article before I started on it the other day. It would be good to find out more about it, but I don't have time at the moment (so removing for now). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The statements about funding do not reflect the cited source. The 2007 source says:
 * "The US Naval Research Laboratory and the Free Haven Project researched, developed, and deployed Tor, the third generation of deployed onion-routing designs, under US Office of Naval Research (ONR) and DARPA funding to secure government communications. Two years after Tor's deployment in 2003, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) funded Free Haven's continuing efforts for one year to help maintain ordinary citizens' civil liberties online. In 2006, the Tor Project incorporated as a nonprofit (www.torproject.org) and has received continued funding from the Omidyar Network, the US International Broadcasting Bureau, and other groups committed to fighting blocking and censorship on the Internet."
 * The Wikipedia article says:
 * "The Free Haven Project worked with the US Naval Research Laboratory under the US Office of Naval Research along with funding from DARPA to develop Tor for the purpose of securing government communications. Tor was deployed in 2003 as the third generation of onion routing systems. In 2005, the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in to provide additional funding to the Free Haven Project to continue development for civilian purposes. Since 2005, Free Haven has also been funded by the Omidyar Network and the International Broadcasting Bureau."


 * The most glaring problem is that this is 2014, and there's no way a 2007 source can verify that those organizations have been providing funding for the project since 2005. Other problems are that the source says that funding began in 2006, not 2005, and that the 2006-2007 funding was for the Tor Project, not the Free Haven Project. (There is no indication in the article that the two organizations are related).


 * Another problem is that the source refers to Tor being deployed "under ONR and DARPA funding", while the Wikipedia article interpreted that as working "under the ONR along with funding from DARPA"; both are terribly formed sentences, but I think the source meant that funding came from both ONR and DARPA, not that work was under ONR with funding from DARPA.


 * A more minor problem is a that the source doesn't mention the EFF's funding to "continue development", but for "continuing efforts", which may have included development but may have been for other purposes. It doesn't even explicitly say the funding was dedicated to Tor, though that's somewhat implied.


 * I think a broader problem with this section is that it provides such isolated snippets of information, just whatever happened to be mentioned in one paragraph of this one primary source, rather than a clear overview. The NRL was involved in at least some capacity past the time the Tor Project was incorporated as a non-profit (an employee from the NRL was an author of the cited 2007 source), but that doesn't come across at all in this section.


 * I'm going to modify the section to reflect what I've said above; feel free to refine, or revert & discuss, as you see fit.Agyle (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced 1999 founding date
The article currently begins with "The Free Haven Project was formed in 1999...", but doesn't cite a source for this. The opening section doesn't require references if it's jsut a summary of information stated and referenced elsewhere in the article, but that isn't the case here. Agyle (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The opening section does cite sources where it's not mentioned elsewhere, of course. As a stub, it doesn't make sense for the lead to truly summarize the rest lest it be just a few words. As for 1999, I'm pretty sure I've seen that elsewhere but for that bit of concrete information it seems a primary source should work just fine. Freehaven.net mentions it on the landing page. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Haven Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606213948/http://jcst.ict.ac.cn:8080/jcst/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=8415 to http://jcst.ict.ac.cn:8080/jcst/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=8415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Haven Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111946/http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~sobti/papers/ieeeic01/ieeeic01.pdf to http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~sobti/papers/ieeeic01/ieeeic01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg