Update todos and notes

long-list-of-interesting-questions

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 * What are the differences between how filters are governed on EN Wikipedia compared to other language versions?
 * Are there filters targetting harassment?
-* Ethnographic analysis (e.g. IVs with edit filter managers would be really interesting)
+* Ethnographic analysis (e.g. IVs with edit filter managers/admins/users whose edits have been disallowed would be really interesting)
 * What is to be learned from studying the regex patterns in more detail?
 * what's filters' genesis story? why were they implemented? (compare with Rambot story) : try to reconstruct by examining traces and old page versions
 * (how) has the notion of "vandalism" on Wikipedia evolved over time (when looking at the regex patterns)

notes

@@ -1739,3 +1739,8 @@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_3#Request_for_n
 "    I would support a name change on all public-facing parts of this extension to "Edit filter". Even after we tell people that "Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive.", they still worry about poisoning of their well. –xenotalk 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)"
 
 as well as several more comments in favour
+
+==========================================================================
+https://ifex.org/international/2019/02/21/technology-block-internet/
+
+"For the same reason, filtering software also frequently over-censors, for example blocking scholarly discussion of terrorism while attempting to limit access to hate speech, or restricting access to sexual health education material while attempting to prevent access to pornography."

thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex

@@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ algorithmic governance?/socio-technical assemblage
 * software
 * tech. infrastructure
 
+* Why are there mechanisms triggered before an edit gets published (such as edit filters), and such triggered afterwards (such as bots)? Is there a qualitative difference?
+* I want to help people to do their work better using a technical system (e.g. the edit filters). How can I do this?
+* The edit filter system can be embedded in the vandalism prevention frame. Are there other contexts/frames for which it is relevant?
+
 \section{Genesis}
 
 * what's filters' genesis story? why were they implemented? (compare with Rambot story) : try to reconstruct by examining traces and old page versions
@@ -165,6 +169,8 @@ A discussion is held there, usually for 7 days, before a decision is reached~\ci
     // does the 2. sentence refer to highly trusted users outside of the sysop group, or generally to highly trusted users? (although better everyone in sysop be "highly trusted"!)
 
 "demonstrated knowledge of the extension's syntax and in understanding and crafting regular expressions is absolutely essential"
+
+* Can filter editors introduce each filter they feel like introducing? Or is a community consensus due when a new filter is introduced?
 \end{comment}
 
 A list of the current edit filter managers for the EN Wikipedia can be found here: \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/abusefilter}.

thesis/6-Discussion.tex

@@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ propriate moderator tools."
   ** that's positive! editors get immmediate feedback and can adjust their (good faith) edit and publish it! which is psychologically better than publish something and have it reverted in 2 days
 * thought: filter are human centered! (if a bot edits via the API, can it trigger a filter? Actually, I think yes, there were a couple of filters with something like "vandalbot" in their public comment)
 
+Claudia: * A focus on the Good faith policies/guidelines is a historical development. After the huge surge in edits Wikipedia experienced starting 2005 the community needed a means to handle these (and the proportional amount of vandalism). They opted for automatisation. Automated system branded a lot of good faith edits as vandalism, which drove new comers away. A policy focus on good faith is part of the intentions to fix this.
+
+ could be that the high hit count was made by false positives, which will have led to disabling the filter (TODO: that's a very interesting question actually; how do we know the high number of hits were actually leggit problems the filter wanted to catch and no false positives?)
+
 \cite{GeiRib2010}
 
 "these tools makes certain pathways of action easier for vandal

thesis/conclusion.tex

@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ editors"
 
 Criticism: threaten free speech, freedom of press and creativity
 
+edit filters implemented an infrastructure that enables censorship
+
 The planned introduction of upload filters by the EU copyright reform is seen critically by Wikimedia Germany:
 \begin{figure}
 \centering

todo

@@ -33,40 +33,10 @@ for fun
 
 # Next steps
 
-Do smth with this info:
-Claudia: * A focus on the Good faith policies/guidelines is a historical development. After the huge surge in edits Wikipedia experienced starting 2005 the community needed a means to handle these (and the proportional amount of vandalism). They opted for automatisation. Automated system branded a lot of good faith edits as vandalism, which drove new comers away. A policy focus on good faith is part of the intentions to fix this.
-* We need a description of the technical workings of the edit filter system!
-* How can we improve it from a computer scientist's/engineer's perspective?
-* What task do the edit filters try to solve? Why does this task exist?/Why is it important?
-* Why are there mechanisms triggered befor an edit gets published (such as edit filters), and such triggered afterwards (such as bots)? Is there a qualitative difference?
+* Why are there mechanisms triggered before an edit gets published (such as edit filters), and such triggered afterwards (such as bots)? Is there a qualitative difference?
 * I want to help people to do their work better using a technical system (e.g. the edit filters). How can I do this?
 * The edit filter system can be embedded in the vandalism prevention frame. Are there other contexts/frames for which it is relevant?
 
-* Think about: what's the computer science take on the field? How can we design a "better"/more efficient/more user friendly system? A system that reflects particular values (vgl Code 2.0, Chapter 3, p.34)?
-  * go over notes in the filter classification and think about interesting controversies, things that attract the attention
-  * what are useful categories
-  * GT is good for tackling controversial questions: e.g. are filters with disallow action a too severe interference with the editing process that has way too much negative consequences? (e.g. driving away new comers?)
-
-* https://ifex.org/international/2019/02/21/technology-block-internet/ <-- filters
-
-* What can we study?
-  * Discussions on filter patterns? On filter repercussions?
-  * Whether filters work the desired way/help for a smoother Wikipedia service or is it a lot of work to maintain them and the usefullness is questionable?
-  * Question: Is it worth it to use a filter which has many side effects?
-  * What can we filter with a REGEX? And what not? Are regexes the suitable technology for the means the community is trying to achieve?
-
-
-* What other data sources can I explore?
-  * Interview with filter managers? with admins? with new editors?
-
-* Can filter editors introduce each filter they feel like introducing? Or is a community consensus due when a new filter is introduced?
-
-* There was the section of what are filters suitable for; should we check filters against this list?
-
-* check filter rules for edits in user/talks name spaces (may be indication of filtering harassment)
-* add also "af_enabled" column to filter list; could be that the high hit count was made by false positives, which will have led to disabling the filter (TODO: that's a very interesting question actually; how do we know the high number of hits were actually leggit problems the filter wanted to catch and no false positives?)
-
-
 * Read these pages
 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
@@ -262,3 +232,31 @@ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/217/ <-- project tickets AbuseFil
   https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page
 
   * create a developer account
+
+Do smth with this info:
+Claudia: * A focus on the Good faith policies/guidelines is a historical development. After the huge surge in edits Wikipedia experienced starting 2005 the community needed a means to handle these (and the proportional amount of vandalism). They opted for automatisation. Automated system branded a lot of good faith edits as vandalism, which drove new comers away. A policy focus on good faith is part of the intentions to fix this.
+* We need a description of the technical workings of the edit filter system!
+* How can we improve it from a computer scientist's/engineer's perspective?
+* What task do the edit filters try to solve? Why does this task exist?/Why is it important?
+
+* Think about: what's the computer science take on the field? How can we design a "better"/more efficient/more user friendly system? A system that reflects particular values (vgl Code 2.0, Chapter 3, p.34)?
+  * go over notes in the filter classification and think about interesting controversies, things that attract the attention
+  * what are useful categories
+  * GT is good for tackling controversial questions: e.g. are filters with disallow action a too severe interference with the editing process that has way too much negative consequences? (e.g. driving away new comers?)
+* What can we study?
+  * Discussions on filter patterns? On filter repercussions?
+  * Whether filters work the desired way/help for a smoother Wikipedia service or is it a lot of work to maintain them and the usefullness is questionable?
+  * Question: Is it worth it to use a filter which has many side effects?
+  * What can we filter with a REGEX? And what not? Are regexes the suitable technology for the means the community is trying to achieve?
+
+* What other data sources can I explore?
+  * Interview with filter managers? with admins? with new editors?
+
+* check filter rules for edits in user/talks name spaces (may be indication of filtering harassment)
+
+* There was the section of what are filters suitable for; should we check filters against this list?
+* add also "af_enabled" column to filter list; could be that the high hit count was made by false positives, which will have led to disabling the filter (TODO: that's a very interesting question actually; how do we know the high number of hits were actually leggit problems the filter wanted to catch and no false positives?)
+
+* https://ifex.org/international/2019/02/21/technology-block-internet/ <-- filters
+
+