Apposite, but defective in a number of respects; also, explicitly advocacy for Tor editing without really addressing the objections to it (that it's 99+% a firehose of garbage).
Rather than me reading through several pages to pick out what you might mean, could you please quote the bits you consider particularly make a relevant point?
- d.
On 10 June 2017 at 15:30, Cristian Consonni cristian@balist.es wrote:
Hi,
I have found now this paper that seems relevant to this conversation:
Forte, Andrea, Nazanin Andalibi, and Rachel Greenstadt "Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: a study of Tor users and Wikipedians." Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW). Portland, OR. CSCW 17 (2017): 12. http://andreaforte.net/ForteCSCW17-Anonymity.pdf
Cristian
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe