@@ -20,10 +20,21 @@ Such non-descriptive hidden filters I labeled with 'hidden_vandalism'. (The seco
And then again, there were also cases where I could not determine any suitable label, since I didn't understand the regex pattern or could not press it into a category.
These were labeled 'unknown'.
For a number of filters, it was particularly difficult to determine whether they were targeting vandalism or good faith edits.
The only thing that would have distinguished between the two would be the editor's motivation, which we have no way of knowing.
During the first labeling session, I tended to label such filters with 'vandalism?', 'good_faith?'.
For the cross-validation labeling (2nd time), I intend to stick myself to the "assume good faith" guideline %TODO: quote
and only label as vandalism cases where we cannot assume good faith anymore.
One characteristic/feature which guided me here is the filter action which represents the judgement of the edit filter manager(s).
Since communication is crucial when assuming good faith, all ambiguous cases which have "warn" as a filter action, will receive a 'good_faith' label.
On the other hand, I will label all filters set to "disallow" as 'vandalism' or a particular type thereof, since the filter action is a clear sign that at least the edit filter managers have decided that seeking a dialog with the offending editor is no longer an option.
The second time, I labeled the whole data set again, this time using the here quoted compiled code book and assigned to every filter every label I deemed appropriate, without looking at the labels I assigned the first time around.
I then compared the labels from both coding sessions. %TODO And did what?; how big was the divergence between both coding sessions?; should I select one, most specific label possible? or allow for multiple labels? what should I do with the cases where it's not clear whether it's vandalism or good faith?
%TODO quote M's methodology book
During the cross-validation labelling (2nd labeling), I
