@@ -221,29 +221,12 @@ A lot of public filters on the other hand still assume good faith from the edito
\end{figure}
\subsection{What do filters target}
%: general behaviour vs edits by single users + manual tags
%TODO maybe get rid of this paragraph all together (it's partially handled by public vs private) --> merge both
As indicated in section~\ref{sec:public-hidden}, most of the public filters target disruptive behaviours in general (e.g. filter 384 disallows ``Addition of bad words or other vandalism'' by any non-confirmed user), while hidden filters are usually aimed at specific users.
There are however some public filter which target particular users or particular pages.
Arguably, (see guidelines) an edit filter may not be the ideal mechanism for this latter purpose, since every incoming edit is checked against all active filters.
In addition, time and again various filters have been introduced to track some specific sort of behaviour which was however neither malicious nor disruptive.
This contradicts/defies/fails the purpose of the mechanism and thus such filters have been (quite swiftly) disabled.
Some filters target (syn!) insults in general, and there are such which target (syn!) specifically insults aimed at particular persons (often edit filter managers).
A lot of hidden filters target specific users/problems.
\begin{comment}
** there are quite some filters targeting particular users: 290 (targets an IP range), 177 ('User:Television Radio'), 663 ('Techno genre warrior
', targets specific IP ranges)
** there are also some targetting particular pages (verify!), although this clashed with the guidelines: 264 "Specific-page vandalism" (it's hidden though, so we don't know what exactly it's doing); 401 ("Red hair" vandalism); there's smth with the main page; 715 "IP notification on RFP/C"
** there are also filters such as 199 (Unflagged bots) which were implemented in order to track something which was not quite malicious or abusive and were thus deemed inappropriate use of filters by the community and consequently (quite swiftly) deleted
** some target insults in general and some contain regexes containing very specifically insults directed towards edit filter managers (see filter 12)
\end{comment}
This section examines in detail the results of the manual tagging of the filters according to their perceived functionality described in section~\ref{sec:manual-classification}.
As figures~\ref{fig:manual-tags-all} and \ref{fig:manual-tags-active} demonstrate, the majority of filters seem to target vandalism (little surprise here).
The second biggest category comprise the ``good faith'' filters. %TODO so?
The second biggest category comprise the ``good faith'' filters, while ``maintenance'' and ``unknown'' filters make up a relatively small part of the total number of filters.
The proportion of vandalism related filters is higher when we look at all filters compared to the enabled ones.
Again, this is probably due to the presumed higher fluctuation rates of hidden filters which are always vandalism related.
Again, this is probably due to the presumed higher fluctuation rates of hidden filters which (according to my labeling, see section~\ref{sec:manual-classification} for rationale) are always vandalism related.
It also comes to attention that the relative share of maintenance related filters is higher when we look at all filters.
The detailed distribution of manually assigned codes and their parent categories can be view on figure~\ref{fig:manual-tags}.
%TODO I don't have anything else to say here?
...
...
@@ -258,7 +241,7 @@ The detailed distribution of manually assigned codes and their parent categories
@@ -273,14 +256,16 @@ The detailed distribution of manually assigned codes and their parent categories
\subsection{Who trips filters}
As of March 15, 2019 $16,489,266$ of the filter hits were caused by IP users, whereas logged in users had matched an edit filter's pattern $6,984,897$ times.
A lot of the logged in users have newly created accounts (many filters look for newly created, or respectively, not confirmed accounts in their pattern). %TODO what is confirmed exactly: 4 day and 10 edits
A lot of the logged in users have newly created accounts (many filters look for newly created, or respectively, not confirmed accounts in their pattern).
%TODO look how many filters are checking for ``!(""confirmed"" in user_groups)''
%TODO this here is an interpretation; decide what to do with it
A user who just registered an account (or who doesn't even bother to) is rather to be expected to be inexperienced with Wikipedia, not familiar with all policies and guidelines and perhaps nor with MediaWiki syntax.
It is also quite likely (to be verified against literature!) that majority of vandalism edits come from the same type of newly/recently registered accounts.
It also sounds plausible that majority of vandalism edits come from the same type of newly/recently registered accounts.
In general, it is rather unlikely that an established Wikipedia editor should at once jeopardise the encyclopedia's purpose and start vandalising.
Although apparently there are determined trolls who ``work accounts up'' to admin and then run rampant.
%TODO mention filters discriminate towards new users: ``!(""confirmed"" in user_groups)'' is the first condition for a lot of them
%TODO mention and discuss that filters discriminate towards new users: ``!(""confirmed"" in user_groups)'' is the first condition for a lot of them
