diff --git a/long-list-of-interesting-questions b/long-list-of-interesting-questions
index 2ced116449a16954f51882cb06ef2283baf84a8f..1a20a336258f538d0bf90689086686f654f5a8f1 100644
--- a/long-list-of-interesting-questions
+++ b/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)
diff --git a/notes b/notes
index 62043b099be2e4f6fabd6e0c92a819f4e1b58934..d4833c13c89edba5cc7996acf7f396c1f1924cba 100644
--- a/notes
+++ b/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."
diff --git a/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex b/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex
index 6d8735d6e4c74dc126603ecc2ff5c81f0afe0d2f..4f2d37d06da18c44730744ee94b46be67e1b0123 100644
--- a/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex
+++ b/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}.
diff --git a/thesis/6-Discussion.tex b/thesis/6-Discussion.tex
index 39f005637cec379a3a1b8d1cb12fd0615ef85e7a..9aa321e508f39fefbf337125314317d1fa16b374 100644
--- a/thesis/6-Discussion.tex
+++ b/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
diff --git a/thesis/conclusion.tex b/thesis/conclusion.tex
index e343e46a26fc8a4cd5676e2a56c52181283fb3ed..cf907334aafb61188db54d79837f4ad132f97352 100644
--- a/thesis/conclusion.tex
+++ b/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
diff --git a/todo b/todo
index 3e26012f181578802f73794c16a4890b93b9bc92..d92023236aa2bad19c307b3309429bfbf7af9ec3 100644
--- a/todo
+++ b/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
+
+