The problem is that we can’t create criteria exactly like this, because there is ambiguity if none of the providers we recommend can meet it, but all of them meet all our other criteria.
All of the criteria we list has to be independently evaluated per provider. We cannot add criteria that depends on the existence of other providers and whether or not they meet the criteria. There will not be minimums or quotas in our categories, no.
So… the way we would have to write your proposal is:
Minimum criteria:
- Supports WireGuard
Best case criteria:
- Supports WireGuard and OpenVPN (to maximize compatibility)
This would technically accomplish what I think you want. However, I think people will disagree with this change, and I also think it will be confusing because the way we’d have to word it will make it kind of seem like we think OpenVPN is equal or better than WireGuard, even with the note that it is only a best case criteria for compatibility reasons.
The truth is that we do not currently recommend VPNs for censorship circumvention in the first place. We only recommend VPNs to protect against passive network surveillance, not active network tampering.
They do provide some protections against that inherently, but I’m just saying if we want to start saying that the ability of VPNs to bypass invasive network censorship is an important criteria for our VPN providers, then that will require a much larger change on the site and we will want to add more information about how/when/why VPNs can be used to circumvent censorship to our knowledge base.
…should we do that?