diff --git a/meeting-notes/20190131-p.md b/meeting-notes/20190131-p.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7a5e17c416411b10e69c44f89b9681bd377eeb0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-notes/20190131-p.md
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Meetings notes 31.01.2019
+
+## My approach
+
+* describe Status Quo
+  * what is an Edit filter?
+  * how / why was it introduced?
+  * how does it work? (from an editor's perspective; as a MediaWiki extention; Governance process)
+  * State of the art on EN Wikipedia: how many filters, how often have they been triggered over the years, etc.
+  * QUESTION: What kinds of filters are there: manual labeling <-- Grounded theory? Start with some basic categories and elaborate label system as I go? How do we proceed from there? After finished: go over all the filters again and refine categorisation?
+
+* evaluation:
+  * do filter solve effectively the task they were conjured up to life to fulfil?
+  * what kinds of biases/problems are there?
+  * who is allowed to edit edit filters?
+
+## Discussion during consultation hour
+
+**Grounded theory:**
+
+* Used to find out how do people handle a specific phenomenon?
+* Hypothesis are constructed underway
+* Otherwise, (if we start with a main hypothesis) there's danger of distortion and finding over proportionally many examples of our "favourite" sort
+* Suitable for answering questions like: how do things relate to each other?
+* Describing filter functionality is a static enterprise
+* GT is interested in processes/development
+  * e.g. the historical development of filters? of the "vandalism" notion in the Wikipedia community (however, we have to ask to what extend is this a question for the computer science)
+* Classification is a basic tool for GT, but we use classification to answer a question, not as an end in itself
+  * do not sort everything is small precise drawers!
+  * ask yourself: why do I do this work? what do I want to achieve with this categorisation?
+  * where are potential problems in this process?: e.g. is a sensible distinction between vandalism and good faith edits even possible?
+  * do not dissipate energy on every possible thought and question; think about: what am I interested in? what's my mission? theoretical sensitivity: what interests me; which questions are interesting and where can we potentially unearth interesting previously overlooked phenomenons?
+  * define focal points
+
+* GT is good for tackling controversial questions: e.g. are filters with disallow action a too severe interference with the editing process that has way too much negative consequences? (e.g. driving away new comers?)
+
+* During research: ask yourself on an ongoing basis: what do I want? why am I doing things?
+
+**GT approach to my research**
+
+* What can we study?
+  * Discussions on filter patterns? On filter repercussions?
+  * Whether filters work the desired way/help for a smoother Wikipedia service or is it a lot of work to maintain them and the usefullness is questionable?
+
+* Comparison between different language versions can be used for theoretical Sampling:
+if we have an intuition/suspicion about something, e.g. a notion has very different ideological connotations in different languages/communities; in order to confirm a story..
+
+* Vandalism and Good faith edits are opposing poles from a social dynamic perspective (Antagonists vs Helpers)
+
+
+**Random questions for me**
+
+* Question: Is it worth it to use a filter which has many side effects?
+* What can we filter with a REGEX? And what not? Are regexes the suitable technology for the means the community is trying to achieve?
+* Can filter editors introduce each filter they feel like introducing? Or is a community consensus due when a new filter is introduced?
+
+
+**Computer science focus**
+
+* What's a computer scientist's perspective on this topic? "How can we optimise a system"?
+
+* Maybe talk to 2-3 people from different fields (management? sociology?) and ask them what their interest in the topic would be in order to find own position in contrast to these;
+* it could be useful to generate background knowledge and identify potentially interesting literature
+
+**Literature**
+
+* Strauss-Corbin (1./2. Edition)
+* K.T: Charmaz Constructivist Grounded Theory