In some sense, the broader categories "vandalism" and "good faith" have something in common.
They are both **motivations** out of which the editors act when composing their corresponding edits.
As already signaled, on grounds of the edit contents alone, it is often not easy to distinguish whether we have to do with a "vandalism" or with a "good faith" edit.
So, very different (contrasting?) motivations may result in identical edits.
Does it make sense to label filters on these grounds then?
In ambiguous cases (there are also the relatively inambiguous ones such as the infamous "poop" vandalism), there is no easy way to tell the motivation of the editor (that is, unless a communication with the editor is attempted and it's pointed out that their edits are disruptive and how to go about it in order to make a constructive contribution), neither for edit filter managers nor for us as researchers.
In a way, "vandalism" and "good faith" cover all the possible experiences along the "motivation" axis:
one of them refers to the edits made out of good and the other to the ones made out of bad intentions.
("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.")
## Open questions
If discerning motivation is difficult, and, we want to achieve different results, depending on the motivation, that lead us to the question whether filtering is the proper mechanism to deal with disruptive edits.
