Finetune background

thesis/2-Background.tex

@@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ Time and again, the literature refers also to more ``manual'' forms of quality c
 There is one mechanism though that is very ostentatiously missing from all these reports: edit filters.
 
 At first, scientific studies on Wikipedia largely ignored algorithmic quality control mechanisms.
-Their contribution to the encyclopedia and therefore their impact were considered insignificant.
+Their contribution to the encyclopedia and therefore their impact were considered insignificant. %quote?
 This has gradually changed since around 2009 when the first papers specifically dedicated to bots (and later semi-automated tools) were published.
 In 2010, Geiger and Ribes insistently highlighted that the scientific community could no longer ingore(syn) these mechanisms as insignificant(syn) or noise in the data~\cite{GeiRib2010}.
-For one, their (the mechanisms') relative usage has continued to increase since they were first introduced, and in 2010 (check!) bots made 16.33\% of all edits~\cite{GeiRib2010}.
+For one, their (the mechanisms') relative usage has continued to increase since they were first introduced, and in an observed two-months period in 2009 bots made 16.33\% of all edits~\cite{Geiger2009}.
 
 Others were worried it was getting increasingly intransparent how the encyclopedia functions and not only ``[k]eeping traces obscure help[ed] the powerful to remain in power''~\cite{ForGei2012} but entry barriers for new users were gradually set higher, since they not only had to learn to use/interact with a myriad of technical tools/.. (learn wikisyntax, ..) but also navigate their ground in a complex system with a decentralised mode of governance. %TODO another reference here would be nice
 Ford and Geiger even cite a case where an editor was not sure whether a person deleted their articles or a bot~\cite{ForGei2012}.
@@ -90,9 +90,6 @@ is_bot	edits	Percentage of all edits
 %todo also mention bot papers that discuss more general aspects of bots?
 According to literature, bots constitute the first line of defence against malicious edits. %TODO quote
 They are also undoubtedly the vandal fighting mechanism studied most in depth by the scientific community.
-Following papers study(syn!) bots on Wikipedia (vandal fighting frame):
-~\cite{GeiRib2010},
-...
 
 Geiger and Ribes~\cite{GeiRib2010} define bots as
 ``fully-automated software
@@ -116,7 +113,7 @@ Very crucial for the current analysis will also be Livingstone's observation in
 If these things are not in the software, an external bot could do them. [...]
 The main difference is where it runs and who runs it.''~\cite{Livingstone2016}
 
-This thought/note is also scrutinised by Geiger~\cite{Geiger2014} who examines in detail what the difference and repercussions are of code that is part of the core software and code that run alongside it (such as bots). %TODO more detail: so what are they?
+This thought/note is also scrutinised by Geiger~\cite{Geiger2014} who examines in detail what the difference and repercussions are of code that is part of the core software and code that runs alongside it (such as bots). %TODO more detail: so what are they?
 
 - "inofficial", run and maintained by the community
     \cite{GeiRib2010}

thesis/references.bib

@@ -37,6 +37,14 @@
   note = {\url{http://www.stuartgeiger.com/writing-up-wikisym.pdf}}
 }
 
+@inproceedings{Geiger2009,
+  title = {The social roles of bots and assisted editing programs},
+  author = {Geiger, R Stuart},
+  booktitle = {Int. Sym. Wikis},
+  year = {2009},
+  note = {\url{http://www.stuartgeiger.com/papers/geiger-wikisym-bots.pdf}}
+}
+
 @article{Geiger2014,
   author = {Geiger, R Stuart},
   title = {Bots, bespoke code and the materiality of software platforms},