[tor-bugs] #17721 [Wiki]: doc/TorPlusVPN confusing and/or inconsistent - refinements, please.

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#17721: doc/TorPlusVPN confusing and/or inconsistent - refinements, please.
--------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  HBcDM719w9j6  |          Owner:
     Type:  defect        |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium        |      Milestone:
Component:  Wiki          |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal        |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  vpn           |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                |         Points:
  Sponsor:                |
--------------------------+---------------------

Comment (by cypherpunks):

 Replying to [ticket:17721 HBcDM719w9j6]:
 > (1) Given: "X in this article stands for, "either a VPN, SSH or proxy""
 >
 > (2):
 > (2.1) } you -> X -> Tor
 > (2.2) } you -> VPN/SSH -> Tor
 >
 > By (1), (2.2) is covered by (2.1), thus the presence of (2.2) makes one
 go, Huh, what, this is covered above! i.e. That (2.2) is the refinement of
 a specific case of (2.1) is not immediately apparent. I suspect part of
 the problem is little header formatting difference between the two - if
 the character sizes are different, they aren't sufficiently different that
 the difference is immediately apparent. Suggestion: Underline (2.1).

 The subsection headers are already underlined with a light-gray line
 (unlike the section headers), indented, and have a smaller font size. In
 addition, the table of contents has an bigger indentation showing the
 subsections more clearly. IMO this should give enough visual hints that
 they are subsections.

 > (3):
 > } you -> Tor -> x
 > } This is generally a really poor plan.
 >
 > -- a link as to why it's a poor plan would be useful.
 >

 The subsections explain why this is a really poor plan. The reasons are
 different for VPN/SSH and proxies which is why they are split into two
 subsections.

 > (4) } you -> Tor -> VPN/SSH
 >
 > -- same comment as (2)
 > -- if (3) is bad, (4) should be just as bad, yet the descriptive text
 infers that the approach is 'reasonable'.
 > -- "You can also route VPN/SSH services through Tor."
 > --= This is what caused me to register to submit this ticket.
 > --=- Shouldn't this be 'You can also route Tor through VPN/SSH
 services'???
 > --=- Thus, confusing, and it's hard enough following the ball as it
 bounces through this. i.e. If it shouldn't be that, it's not apparent that
 it shouldn't be that - which is to say the article being clearer would be
 useful. If it should be as suggested ...
 > -- "In our experience, establishing VPN connections through Tor is
 chancy" but one is reading this to establish Tor -> VPN, so one questions
 if this pertains to what they're trying to find out about, confusion
 results ... and the (excellent) purpose in writing the article in the
 first place isn't being met.
 >
 > I don't mean to say that I am reading correctly, and thus making
 accurate comments, however, if I'm not, it's not apparent or clear that
 I'm not. Perhaps refactoring the article makes sense.

 Routing Tor through VPN/SSH would be `You -> VPN/SSH -> Tor` so the
 current text is correct. If it is still unclear you can edit the wiki
 yourself and improve its contents.

 >
 > (5) } general
 >
 > I got to this article as it is made clear that Tor anonymizes TCP
 traffic. I was looking to see that all other traffic was anonymized as
 well. (Let alone, more traffic leaks from a machine than I can possibly
 track, so having a catch all seems prudent.) 'General' referring to this
 use case / reason for coming to consume the article would be useful. i.e.
 Means one has gotten to a page that addresses what they're thinking about
 - if this page does not deal with that use case, a link to such other as
 does would be useful.

 If you have something in mind, please add it to the wiki yourself.

 >
 > (6) } Practical
 >
 > I got to this article from whonix. This reference makes things circular.
 Something to help one break this circular reference would be useful.
 Why is the circular referencing a problem?

 >
 > Thanks for listening.

 Thank you for the ticket.

 In summary, if there are problems with content on the wiki and you have
 improvements, make these changes to the wiki yourself (everyone can edit
 the wiki AFAIK). For questions there is
 [https://www.torproject.org/about/contact.html.en#irc IRC], the
 [https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#MailingLists
 mailing lists], and the [https://tor.stackexchange.com/ Tor Stack
 Exchange].

 Please close this ticket if there is nothing more to be done.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17721#comment:1>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online