diff --git a/thesis/2-Background.tex b/thesis/2-Background.tex
index 536a7747eef872f89336db3e5e136f74fd60200b..c713f1791af596313a3b284b4a219ce1df6c8e7f 100644
--- a/thesis/2-Background.tex
+++ b/thesis/2-Background.tex
@@ -13,61 +13,49 @@ Vandalism includes ``malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing
as well as ``adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page''
and ``[a]busive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses''.
-Wikipedians have elaborated a whole vandalism typology(?).
+Wikipedians have elaborated a whole vandalism typology~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism}, illustrated by figure~\ref{fig:vandalism-typology}.
+\begin{comment}
+Types of vandalism \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism}:
+ (Abuse of tags; Account creation, malicious; Avoidant vandalism; Blanking, illegitimate; Copyrighted material, repeated uploading of; Edit summary vandalism; Format vandalism; Gaming the system; Hidden vandalism; Hoaxing vandalism; Image vandalism; Link vandalism; Page creation, illegitimate; Page lengthening; Page-move vandalism; Silly vandalism; Sneaky vandalism; Spam external linking; Stockbroking vandalism; talk page vandalism; Template vandalism; User and user talk page vandalism; Vandalbots;)
+\end{comment}
%What is not vandalism
-Disruptive editing
-
-%Who engages in vandalism (and why?)
-
-%Who is striving to prevent vandalism? How do they go about it?
-
-Since Wikipedia is a ``do-it-yourself'' project, every editor who notices vandalism is called upon to help fixing it.
-There is a formal process for reporting users who engage in vandalism %TODO look up Administrator intervention against vandalism
-and requesting page protection for frequently vandalised pages. %TODO quote
-And there are also users who specifically dedicate substantial amount of their Wikipedia contributions to fighting vandalism.
+There are different types of edits viewed as disruptive by the Wikipedia community.
+Edit warring and pushing a single point of view and disregarding community feedback are examples here of. %TODO what are other examples?
+Nevertheless, the guidelines caution that ``[d]isruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive''~\cite{Wikipedia:DisruptiveEditing}.
+And that different procedures should be adopted by editors in both cases.
-These dedicated vandal fighters mostly do so with the aid of some (semi or fully) automated tools which significally speeds up the process (see below).
+The vandalism policy also cautions about using the ``vandalism'' label since it tends to drive contributors away and prevent constructive discussions~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism}.
+%TODO vgl good faith memo
+\begin{comment}
\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism}
-
-Consequences of vandalism, vandalism management
-"Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued). "
-
-"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
-"For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism." !!!
"Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism."
-"If it is clear that the editor in question is intending to improve Wikipedia, those edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia."
-"When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement,"
-
-Handling
-"Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone, warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by blocking such editors. Users whose main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning."
-
-"examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses, red linked, or obviously improvised usernames"
-
-One of the strategies to spot vandalism is "Watching for edits tagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit."
-
-"Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, a series of warning templates exist to simplify the process of warning users, but these templates are not required."
-
-Types of vandalism \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism}:
- (Abuse of tags; Account creation, malicious; Avoidant vandalism; Blanking, illegitimate; Copyrighted material, repeated uploading of; Edit summary vandalism; Format vandalism; Gaming the system; Hidden vandalism; Hoaxing vandalism; Image vandalism; Link vandalism; Page creation, illegitimate; Page lengthening; Page-move vandalism; Silly vandalism; Sneaky vandalism; Spam external linking; Stockbroking vandalism; talk page vandalism; Template vandalism; User and user talk page vandalism; Vandalbots;)
+%TODO vgl with memo-good-faith
\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing}
-"Disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive."
"Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively "
Okay what are disruptive edits that are not vandalism? (apart from edit wars)
-"sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy, or self-promotion."
-"not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view."
+"Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable."
+\end{comment}
-"Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."
+%Who engages in vandalism (and why?)
-examples of disruptive editing:
-"Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable."
-"Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."
+The policy signals clearly that editors repeatedly engaging in vandalism are subject to banning.
+Furthermore, it is explained that although warnings for vandalism are issued in general, these are not a prerequisite for banning~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism}.
+%TODO: still not explained who and why
+%Who is striving to prevent vandalism? How do they go about it?
+
+Since Wikipedia is a ``do-it-yourself'' project, every editor who notices vandalism is called upon to help fixing it.
+There is a formal process for reporting users who engage in vandalism %TODO look up Administrator intervention against vandalism
+and requesting page protection for frequently vandalised pages. %TODO quote
+And there are also users who specifically dedicate substantial amount of their Wikipedia contributions to fighting vandalism.
+
+These dedicated vandal fighters mostly do so with the aid of some (semi or fully) automated tools which significally speeds up the process (see below).
\section{Quality-control mechanisms on Wikipedia}
%Context
diff --git a/thesis/references.bib b/thesis/references.bib
index 8d76f8f71e0e522aa1a0eaca5d4c526d02044e86..d3ee296b28da14204c5798f97939186275999782 100644
--- a/thesis/references.bib
+++ b/thesis/references.bib
@@ -150,6 +150,15 @@
organization = {ACM}
}
+@misc{Wikipedia:DisruptiveEditing,
+ key = "Wikipedia Disruptive Editing",
+ author = {},
+ title = {},
+ year = 2019,
+ note = {Retreived April 4, 2019 from
+ \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing}}
+}
+
@misc{Wikipedia:EditFilter,
key = "Wikipedia Edit Filter",
author = {},