@@ -522,41 +522,23 @@ The coding of filters from this cluster took into consideration/reflects the are
Some filters with labels pertaining (syn!) to the ``good faith'' cluster target (syn!) for example unwikified edits, publishing test changes, or improper use of templates.
% unaware of proper procedure
%TODO do something with this
\begin{comment}
Interestingly, there was a guideline somewhere stating that no trivial formatting mistakes should trip filters\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilterRequested}
%TODO (what exactly are trivial formatting mistakes? starting every paragraph with a small letter; or is this orthography and trivial formatting mistakes references only Wiki syntax? I think though they are similar in scale and impact)
I actually think, a bot fixing this would be more appropriate.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Maintenance}
\begin{comment}
# Filters with maintenance purpose
Some of the encountered edit filters on the EN Wikipedia were targeting neither vandalism nor good faith edits.
These had rather their focus on (semi-)automated routine (clean up) tasks.
Some of the filters I labeled as "maintenance" were for instance recording cases of broken syntax caused by a faulty browser extension (Filter 345)
Others were targeting bugs such as..
Rather, they had their focus on (semi-)automated routine (clean up) tasks.
%TODO compare also with 2nd presi
577 -> "VisualEditor bugs: Strange icons"
345 -> "Extraneous formatting from browser extension"
313 -> "Skype Toolbar Formatting"
199 -> "Unflagged Bots"
505 -> "Tag mobile edits"
728 -> "Huggle"
209 -> "arwiki interwiki problem"
Some of the filters from the ``maintenance'' cluster were for instance targeting bugs such as broken syntax caused by a faulty browser extension.
Or there were such which simply tracked particular behaviours (such as mobile edits or edits made by unflagged bots) for various purposes.
The maintenance parent category differs conceptually from the other 2 in so far that filters in it don't target particular **intents** of the editors whose edits are triggering the filter, but rather "side"-occurances that mostly went wrong.
The maintenance cluster differs conceptually from the ``vandalism'' and ``good faith'' ones in so far that filters in it don't target particular **intents** of the editors whose edits are triggering the filter, but rather "side"-occurances that mostly went wrong.
## Bugs
There are some 10 or so filters I manually labeled as targeting "bugs".
Most of them do log only.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\item get a sense of what gets filtered (more qualitative): TODO: refine after sorting through manual categories; preliminary: vandalism; unintentional suboptimal behavior from new users who don't know better ("good faith edits") such as blanking an article/section; creating an article without categories; adding larger texts without references; large unwikified new article (180); or from users who are too lazy (to write proper edit summaries; editing behaviours and styles not suitable for an encyclopedia (poor grammar/not commiting to orthography norms; use of emoticons and !; ascii art?); "unexplained removal of sourced content" (636) may be an attempt to silence a view point the editor doesn't like; self-promotion(adding unreferenced material to BLP; "users creating autobiographies" 148;); harassment; sockpuppetry; potential copyright violations; that's more or less it actually. There's a third bigger cluster of maintenance stuff, such as tracking bugs or other problems, trying to sort through bot edits and such. For further details see the jupyter notebook.
Interestingly, there was a guideline somewhere stating that no trivial formatting mistakes should trip filters\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilterRequested}
%TODO (what exactly are trivial formatting mistakes? starting every paragraph with a small letter; or is this orthography and trivial formatting mistakes references only Wiki syntax? I think though they are similar in scale and impact)
I actually think, a bot fixing this would be more appropriate.
