# Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor

## TL;DR

This study analyzes Wikipedia contributions from Tor users, revealing that despite bans, many edits succeed and are comparable in quality to other unregistered users, highlighting potential collateral damage of anonymity restrictions.

## Contribution

It provides an empirical analysis of Tor contributions to Wikipedia, showing that many bypass bans and are similar in quality to other unregistered users, challenging assumptions about anonymity and vandalism.

## Key findings

- Thousands of Tor edits succeed despite bans.
- Tor contributions are similar in quality to other unregistered edits.
- Tor users' edits are more likely to be reverted or revert others.

## Abstract

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.