The Value of Tor and Anonymous Contributions To Wikipedia

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.

Wikipedia is user generated content at its worst

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[Presence Eternal]

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:

[xaosflux]

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:

[Presence Eternal]

That sounds like a good policy, although I suspect it might sometimes be used as an impetus to shut down disagreement.

Re:

[Moryath]

The majority of the time, the method of shutting down disagreement is far easier - just find a friendly admin (for topics connected even tangentially to the USA, a racist/homophobe like "Bbb23" or "DoRD" is usual) willing to block random people claiming falsely that they are "sockpuppets" until the WP:OWNing side wins.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

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:

[Moryath]

This is pretty much the norm. Wikipedia long ago ceased actually being a real project and became a video game for power-mad narcissists who got power there in their teenage years. Spend any time there trying to do good work and you'll inevitably run across an admin looking to get off on abusing their power, or someone with an admin friend willing to step in to help them "WP:OWN" (their terminology, but which they never enforce) a particular page or topic.

Most of the policies are meaningless, and the few t

Re:

[dhammabum]

I also contribute, though semi-regularly. I haven't see my grammatical or clarification edits reverted. Have you tried their resolution process [wikipedia.org]? That process includes an administrator noticeboard for incidents in conduct-related disputes, after normal, polite, 'talk' discussions fail to resolve the problem. Most times I have a content (rather than grammatical) change reverted, I get a message from the editor as to why. I don't necessarily agree, but they are usually reasonable. You don't say whether you e

Re:

[Moryath]

You're kidding right? The "dispute resolution" process is one of the worst jokes on wikipedia. Almost nobody uses it, because getting some friendly admins to just block one side claiming "sockpuppet" and pronounce a "win" is the go-to tactic of people who "WP:OWN" a page or topic.

Why hasn't Slashdot made an encyclopedia?

[xack]

Because you always complain about how you were reverted but can you do any better? I don't like Wikipedia's admins or notability policy but we have to accept Wikipedia is the top .org site on the internet and Google and other search engines trust it for their info boxes. I have my own wikis I maintain and I feel any one who has a legitimate problem with Wikipedia should set their own one up.

Re:

[Moryath]

Ah, the age old "just fork it" response, which ignores the actual unfair-advantage issues that got wikipedia to that point in the first place, and the parade of abuses by the people who run wikipedia to begin with.