One takeaway (certainly not the only) from the paper is that most research is done by a few participants, even as participation size increases.
As for the muscle-powered, on page 4 of the document there's a graphic that shows the ratios, and it's no contest. The vast majority are involved in announcing (the situation) and uploading / re-uploading (the information). Informing and spreading.
It's obvious to me in hindsight, but I wasn't expecting such a wide gulf.
The phenomenon is interesting as one example (among many others) of the democratization and 'cutting out the middle man' that the web offers: citizens taking legal and ethical matters into their own hands. It relates to things like the #metoo movement and Anonymous in the west.
Ultimately these 'courts' tend to devolve into witch-hunts and mob rule without possibility to appeal, but it doesn't mean that they don't play some positive role - in nudging law enforcement to step up their game if nothing else.
This document doesn't explore those aspects however.
