From 7b3c57d3165538dfc8b8232ed6ce86f628619840 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lyudmila Vaseva <vaseva@mi.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:11:17 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo

---
 meeting-notes/20190321.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meeting-notes/20190321.md b/meeting-notes/20190321.md
index b6bc78e..7687a25 100644
--- a/meeting-notes/20190321.md
+++ b/meeting-notes/20190321.md
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 * Filter trigger before a publication, Bots trigger afterwads
   ** 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)
-* there seems to be a hart condition limit for filters: so the active ones are best of! which filters are best-of? a theory: "I've combated so and so many occurances of vandalism X with my bot. Let us implement a filter for this"
+* there seems to be a hard condition limit for filters: so the active ones are best of! which filters are best-of? a theory: "I've combated so and so many occurances of vandalism X with my bot. Let us implement a filter for this"
 * what part of the quality control work do humans take over? (in contrast to the algorithmic mechanisms)
 * what's filters' genesis story? why were they implemented? (compare with Rambot story) : try to reconstruct by examining traces and old page versions
 * Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, Bots exist nearly since the very beginning (2002?), why did the community introduce filters in 2009?
-- 
GitLab