Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor
This addresses the problem of potential overblocking of valuable contributions from privacy-conscious users on platforms like Wikipedia, though it is incremental in refining existing moderation policies.
The study analyzed Wikipedia edits from Tor users to assess the impact of blocking anonymity-seeking contributors, finding that while their edits are more likely to be reverted, their quality is comparable to other unregistered and new registered users.
User-generated content sites routinely block contributions from users of privacy-enhancing proxies like Tor because of a perception that proxies are a source of vandalism, spam, and abuse. Although these blocks might be effective, collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible. One of the largest and most important user-generated content sites, Wikipedia, has attempted to block contributions from Tor users since as early as 2005. We demonstrate that these blocks have been imperfect and that thousands of attempts to edit on Wikipedia through Tor have been successful. We draw upon several data sources and analytical techniques to measure and describe the history of Tor editing on Wikipedia over time and to compare contributions from Tor users to those from other groups of Wikipedia users. Our analysis suggests that although Tor users who slip through Wikipedia's ban contribute content that is more likely to be reverted and to revert others, their contributions are otherwise similar in quality to those from other unregistered participants and to the initial contributions of registered users.