The Value of Tor and Anonymous Contributions To Wikipedia (torproject.org) 16
According to a recently published research paper [PDF] co-authored by researchers from Drexel, NYU, and the University of Washington, Tor users make high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. And, when they are blocked, as doctoral candidate Chau Tran, the lead author describes, "the collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible." From a blog post: The authors of the paper include Chau Tran (NYU), Kaylea Champion (UW & CDSC), Andrea Forte (Drexel), Benjamin Mako Hill (UW & CDSC), and Rachel Greenstadt (NYU). The paper was published at the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy between May 18 and 20. By examining more than 11,000 Wikipedia edits made by Tor users able to bypass Wikipedia's Tor ban between 2007 and 2018, the research team found that Tor users made similar quality edits to those of IP editors, who are non-logged-in users identified by their IP addresses, and first-time editors. The paper notes that Tor users, on average, contributed higher-quality changes to articles than non-logged-in IP editors.
The study also finds that Tor-based editors are more likely than other users to focus on topics that may be considered controversial, such as politics, technology, and religion. Related research implies Tor users are quite similar to other internet users, and Tor users frequently visit websites in the Alexa top one million. The new study findings make clear how anonymous users are raising the bar on community discussions and how valuable anonymity is to avoid self-censorship. Anonymity and privacy can help protect users from consequences that may prevent them from interacting with the Wikipedia community.
The study also finds that Tor-based editors are more likely than other users to focus on topics that may be considered controversial, such as politics, technology, and religion. Related research implies Tor users are quite similar to other internet users, and Tor users frequently visit websites in the Alexa top one million. The new study findings make clear how anonymous users are raising the bar on community discussions and how valuable anonymity is to avoid self-censorship. Anonymity and privacy can help protect users from consequences that may prevent them from interacting with the Wikipedia community.
Wikipedia is user generated content at its worst (Score:2, Insightful)
I've contributed many times to Wikipedia. I'm always factual, include links to real (not user generated content) sources, and analysis.
Invariably self-promoted "Wikipedia editors" with their own agendas revert my edits, even typographical fixes, claiming I'm a troll. I assure you I'm not.
This happens on IT things, political things, geographical things (seriously), historical things.
Wikipedia is a great experiment, but it needs to adopt a different editorship/moderatorship mentality. Slashdot's moderator/met
Re: (Score:1)
My favorite Wikipedia moment was something along the lines of "The Talk page is not a discussion forum for the subject matter." I don't know if that's a true policy or not, but it doesn't even matter. It makes Wikipedia look like shit regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia 'talk' pages are for talking "about the article", what should be in it - what shouldn't - what types of sources are useful - how can it be better quality - requests for images wanted - etc; they are very much not to have general discussions "about the subject" of the article.
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds like a good policy, although I suspect it might sometimes be used as an impetus to shut down disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia 'talk' pages are for talking "about the article", what should be in it - what shouldn't - what types of sources are useful - how can it be better quality - requests for images wanted - etc; they are very much not to have general discussions "about the subject" of the article.
One thing looks much like the other, though. If you want to justify your stance on an issue you have to back it up, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the policies are meaningless, and the few t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why hasn't Slashdot made an encyclopedia? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)