Characterizing Online Vandalism: A Rational Choice Perspective

TL;DR

This paper investigates why vandals choose to deface Wikipedia by grounding vandalism decisions in Rational Choice Theory (RCT) and Value Expectancy Theory (VET). It combines a mixed-methods analysis of four editor groups with an extended ontology of vandalism to categorize 141 instances from 1100 revisions, linking vandalism type and rate to identifiability and prior policy exposure. The findings show distinct vandalism patterns by group: higher-risk and community-targeted acts are more common among less identifiable or excluded groups, while more effort-based constraints reduce overall vandalism. The work contributes a framework for modeling online vandalism as a rational decision, offering design and policy implications to deter harm without discouraging legitimate participation.

Abstract

What factors influence the decision to vandalize? Although the harm is clear, the benefit to the vandal is less clear. In many cases, the thing being damaged may itself be something the vandal uses or enjoys. Vandalism holds communicative value: perhaps to the vandal themselves, to some audience at whom the vandalism is aimed, and to the general public. Viewing vandals as rational community participants despite their antinormative behavior offers the possibility of engaging with or countering their choices in novel ways. Rational choice theory (RCT) as applied in value expectancy theory (VET) offers a strategy for characterizing behaviors in a framework of rational choices, and begins with the supposition that subject to some weighting of personal preferences and constraints, individuals maximize their own utility by committing acts of vandalism. This study applies the framework of RCT and VET to gain insight into vandals' preferences and constraints. Using a mixed-methods analysis of Wikipedia, I combine social computing and criminological perspectives on vandalism to propose an ontology of vandalism for online content communities. I use this ontology to categorize 141 instances of vandalism and find that the character of vandalistic acts varies by vandals' relative identifiability, policy history with Wikipedia, and the effort required to vandalize.

Figures (4)

• Figure 1: Regardless of whether they are logged in or not, a Tor user will see a message like the one above if they attempt to edit Wikipedia. In this case, the author is seeking to edit her own personal user page while logged in. The message states that editing one's own User Talk page and e-mailing administrators is still allowed.
• Figure 2: Conceptual model of vandalism. In the 'maximize utility' stage, Value Expectancy Theory argues that individuals weigh out their possible actions against their possible outcomes, their value, and their likelihood, then choose the action they find the most optimal.
• Figure 3: This screenshot is taken from Wikipedia's "diff" view. It highlights the differences between two versions of the article on Social Media. The left side shows the "before" view; "after" is on the right. The highlighted blue area with a + sign indicates what was added by the version. In this case, an IP-based editor adds a type of vandalism this paper would characterize as social ("whoop whoop big man tings"). Arrows above the text allow navigation through the revision history of the article.
• Figure 4: This screenshot is taken from a Wikipedia user's contribution page, in this case the contributions from the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales. This information is available for all contributors.