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 <crist...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to