当维基百科遇到Tor:互联网历史上关键时刻的合法性考验

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Sebastiaan Gorissen, R. Gehl
{"title":"当维基百科遇到Tor:互联网历史上关键时刻的合法性考验","authors":"Sebastiaan Gorissen, R. Gehl","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2005, the paths of Wikipedia and The Tor Project crossed publicly and ferociously. Tired of trolls and vandals, Wikipedia decided to block all Tor users from editing encyclopaedia articles. The Tor Project protested, arguing that such a block was not only ineffective, but constituted a form of censorship. This conflict came at a time when both projects were fighting to establish, maintain, and expand their perceived legitimacy. Using a threefold definition of “legitimacy,” this essay explores the Wikipedia/Tor conflict as a legitimacy conflict. We argue that Wikipedia was heavily invested in a conception of legitimacy as authenticity, focusing on who should be counted as a Wikipedian and who should be excluded. In contrast, the Tor Project was more concerned with Weberian legitimacy, challenging states’ claims to the monopoly of violent power. However, both projects shared an interest in acquiring resources and respect, or legitimacy as propriety. To explain this conflict, we draw on an archive of primary source emails and historical documents focusing on the early days (2001–2005) of both projects.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Wikipedia met Tor: trials of legitimacy at a key moment in internet history\",\"authors\":\"Sebastiaan Gorissen, R. Gehl\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 2005, the paths of Wikipedia and The Tor Project crossed publicly and ferociously. Tired of trolls and vandals, Wikipedia decided to block all Tor users from editing encyclopaedia articles. The Tor Project protested, arguing that such a block was not only ineffective, but constituted a form of censorship. This conflict came at a time when both projects were fighting to establish, maintain, and expand their perceived legitimacy. Using a threefold definition of “legitimacy,” this essay explores the Wikipedia/Tor conflict as a legitimacy conflict. We argue that Wikipedia was heavily invested in a conception of legitimacy as authenticity, focusing on who should be counted as a Wikipedian and who should be excluded. In contrast, the Tor Project was more concerned with Weberian legitimacy, challenging states’ claims to the monopoly of violent power. However, both projects shared an interest in acquiring resources and respect, or legitimacy as propriety. To explain this conflict, we draw on an archive of primary source emails and historical documents focusing on the early days (2001–2005) of both projects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Histories\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Histories\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Histories","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要2005年,维基百科和托尔计划的道路公开而激烈地交叉。厌倦了巨魔和破坏者,维基百科决定阻止所有Tor用户编辑百科全书文章。Tor项目提出抗议,认为这样的阻止不仅无效,而且构成了一种审查形式。这场冲突发生的时候,两个项目都在为建立、维护和扩大其感知的合法性而斗争。本文使用“合法性”的三重定义,将Wikipedia/Tor冲突作为合法性冲突进行了探讨。我们认为,维基百科在合法性即真实性的概念上投入了大量资金,重点关注谁应该被视为维基人,谁应该被排除在外。相比之下,Tor项目更关心Weberian的合法性,挑战各州对暴力权力垄断的主张。然而,这两个项目都有获得资源和尊重的共同利益,或者合法性是恰当的。为了解释这一冲突,我们利用了主要来源电子邮件和历史文件的档案,重点关注这两个项目的早期(2001-2005年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Wikipedia met Tor: trials of legitimacy at a key moment in internet history
Abstract In 2005, the paths of Wikipedia and The Tor Project crossed publicly and ferociously. Tired of trolls and vandals, Wikipedia decided to block all Tor users from editing encyclopaedia articles. The Tor Project protested, arguing that such a block was not only ineffective, but constituted a form of censorship. This conflict came at a time when both projects were fighting to establish, maintain, and expand their perceived legitimacy. Using a threefold definition of “legitimacy,” this essay explores the Wikipedia/Tor conflict as a legitimacy conflict. We argue that Wikipedia was heavily invested in a conception of legitimacy as authenticity, focusing on who should be counted as a Wikipedian and who should be excluded. In contrast, the Tor Project was more concerned with Weberian legitimacy, challenging states’ claims to the monopoly of violent power. However, both projects shared an interest in acquiring resources and respect, or legitimacy as propriety. To explain this conflict, we draw on an archive of primary source emails and historical documents focusing on the early days (2001–2005) of both projects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internet Histories
Internet Histories Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信