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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
