diff --git a/notes b/notes
index 2039175bff12d25d27e27818fdf506c7bb07704a..2d612ce8eacf0da37959ab4fc71bf7286f64bc86 100644
--- a/notes
+++ b/notes
@@ -1724,3 +1724,9 @@ is_bot edits Percentage of all edits
\item how many different edit filter editors are there (af\_user)?
\item categorise filters according to which name spaces they apply to; pay special attention to edits in user/talks name spaces (may be indication of filtering harassment)
\end{itemize}
+
+\textbf{Questions on abuse\_filter\_action table}
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item how many filters trigger any particular action (at the moment)?
+ \item how many different parameters are there (i.e. tags when tagging, or templates to show upon a warning)?
+\end{itemize}
diff --git a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
index 3d9f874b3849ab9334af1a3073ed2c54324292f0..1035b6b6465f08a3371f8820b3821735e138f90b 100644
--- a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
+++ b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
@@ -62,11 +62,22 @@ abuse_filter
In this section, we explore some general patterns of the edit filters on Engish Wikipedia, or respectively the data from the \emph{abuse\_filter} table.
The scripts that generate the statistics discussed here, can be found in the jupyter notebook in the project's repository. %TODO add link after repository has been cleaned up
-As of January 6th, 2019 there are 954 filters in this table.
+As of January 6th, 2019 there are $954$ filters in this table.
It should be noted, that if a filter gets deleted, merely a flag is set to indicate so, but no entries are removed from the database.
-So, the above mentioned 954 filters are all filters ever made up to this date.
+So, the above mentioned $954$ filters are all filters ever made up to this date.
This doesn't mean that it never changed what the filters are doing, since, as pointed out in chapter~\ref{}, edit filter managers can freely modify filter patterns, so at some point the filter could be doing one thing and in the next moment, it is filtering a completely different phenomenon.
This doesn't happen very often though.
+$361$ of all filters are public, the remaining $593$–hidden.
+$110$ of the public ones are active, $35$ are disabled, but not marked as deleted, and $216$ are flagged as deleted.
+Out of the $593$ hidden filters $91$ are active, $118$ are disabled (not deleted), and $384$ are deleted.
+The relative proportion of these groups to each other can be viewed on figure~\ref{fig:general-stats}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pics/general_stats.png}
+ \caption{EN Wikipedia edit filters: hidden, disabled and deleted filters}~\label{fig:general-stats}
+\end{figure}
+
Tables ... show how many new filters have been introduced over the years.
And how many filters have been active (``enabled'') over the years. %TODO do I have data for this
@@ -115,10 +126,10 @@ There are in the meantime over 5 pages of them, it is definitely happening autom
TODO: download data; write script to identify actions that triggered the filters (accountcreations? edits?) and what pages were edited
Note: do hidden filters appear in this numbers and in the table? (They are definitely not displayed in the front end of the AbuseLog)
\end{comment}
-%TODO strectch plot so months are readable
+%TODO strectch plot so months are readable; darn. now it's too small on the pdf. Fix it! May be rotate to landscape?
\begin{figure}
\centering
- \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pics/number-filter-hits.png}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pics/filter-hits-zoomed.png}
\caption{EN Wikipedia edit filters: Number of hits per month}~\label{fig:filter-hits}
\end{figure}
@@ -205,11 +216,6 @@ Most public filters on the other hand still assume good faith from the editors a
\item in which namespaces get filters triggered most frequently?
\end{itemize}
-\textbf{Questions on abuse\_filter\_action table}
-\begin{itemize}
- \item how many filters trigger any particular action (at the moment)?
- \item how many different parameters are there (i.e. tags when tagging, or templates to show upon a warning)?
-\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
@@ -313,12 +319,6 @@ It draws attention that currently nearly $2/3$ of all edit filters are not viewa
Unfortunately, without the full \emph{abuse\_filter\_history} table we cannot know how this ration has developed historically.
However, the numbers fit the assertion of the extension's core developer according to whom edit filters target particularly determined vandals.
-\begin{figure}
-\centering
- \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pics/general_stats.png}
- \caption{EN Wikipedia edit filters: hidden, disabled and deleted filters}~\label{fig:general-stats}
-\end{figure}
-
Although the initial plan was to make all filters hidden, the community discussions rebutted that so a guideline was drafted calling for
hiding filters ``only where necessary, such as in long-term abuse cases where the targeted user(s) could review a public filter and use that knowledge to circumvent it.''~\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilter}.
Further, caution in filter naming is suggested for hidden filters and editors are encouraged to give such filters just simple description of the overall disruptive behaviour rather than naming a specific user that is causing the disruptions.
diff --git a/thesis/conclusion.tex b/thesis/conclusion.tex
index 8c6e088c873aa8d958392b26fc22ad2bfdef2dd9..96f3a62acc42d11099e6c0c2d55f01265f4f04c7 100644
--- a/thesis/conclusion.tex
+++ b/thesis/conclusion.tex
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ timeline
Interesting fact: there are edit filters that try to precisely identify the upload of media violating copyrights
%TODO refer to Lessig, Chapter 10 when making the upload filter commentary
+% think about what values are embedded how in what systems (Lessig)
From talk archive:
"Automatic censorship won't work on a wiki. " // so, people already perceive this as censorship; user goes on to basically provide all the reasons why upload filters are bad idea (Interlanguage problems, no recognition of irony, impossibility to discuss controversial issues); they also have a problem with being blocked by a technology vs a real person