From d19ab67be48ff4e448fd5d5249df877d3bb7f05e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lyudmila Vaseva <vaseva@mi.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:17:49 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Comment on most active filters
---
thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
thesis/references.bib | 2 +-
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
index 891b579..9fb4f0c 100644
--- a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
+++ b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
@@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ till now it comes to attention that a lot of accounts named something resembling
There are in the meantime over 5 pages of them, it is definitely happening automatically
TODO: download data; write script to identify actions that triggered the filters (accountcreations? edits?) and what pages were edited
+Note: do hidden filters appear in this numbers and in the table? (They are definitely not displayed in the front end of the AbuseLog)
\end{comment}
%TODO strectch plot so months are readable
\begin{figure}
@@ -128,7 +129,18 @@ TODO: download data; write script to identify actions that triggered the filters
The ten most active filters of all times (with number of hits and public description) are displayed in table~\ref{tab:most-active-actions}.
For a more detailed reference, the ten most active filters of each year are listed in the appendix. %TODO are there some historical trends we can read out of it?
-and, of course, the whole table can be consulted in the repository~\cite{github}.
+and, of course, the whole \emph{abuse\_filter} table snapshot can be consulted in the repository~\cite{github}.
+
+Already, a couple of patterns draw attention when we look at the most active (syn!) filters:
+They seem to catch a combination of possibly good faith edits which were none the less unconstructive (such as removing references, section blanking or large deletions)
+and what the community has come to call ``silly vandalism''~\cite{Wikipedia:VandalismTypes}: repeating characters and inserting profanities.
+Interestingly, that's not what the developers of the extension believed it was going to be good for:
+``It is not, as some seem to believe, intended to block profanity in articles (that would be extraordinarily dim), nor even to revert page-blankings, '' claimed its core developer on July 9th 2008~\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilterTalkArchive1}.
+Rather, among the 10 most active filters, it is filter 527 ``T34234: log/throttle possible sleeper account creations'' which seems to target what most closely resembles the intended aim of the edit filter extension. %TODO explain again what the intended aim was
+
+Another assumption that proved to be wrong/didn't quite carry into effect was that ``filters in this extension would be triggered fewer times than once every few hours''.
+As a matter of fact, a quick glance at the AbuseLog~\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog}} confirms that there are often multiple filter hits per minute.
+
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r r p{8cm} p{2cm} }
@@ -144,20 +156,13 @@ and, of course, the whole table can be consulted in the repository~\cite{github}
633 & 808,716 & possible canned edit summary & tag \\
636 & 726,764 & unexplained removal of sourced content & warn \\
3 & 700,522 & new user blanking articles & tag, warn \\
- 650 & 695,601 &creation of a new article without any categories & (log only) \\
+ 650 & 695,601 & creation of a new article without any categories & (log only) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{What do most active filters do?}~\label{tab:most-active-actions}
\end{table*}
%TODO compare with table and with most active filters per year: is it old or new filters that get triggered most often? (I'd say it's a mixture of both and we can now actually answer this question with the history API, it shows us when a filter was first created)
-\begin{comment}
-It is not, as some seem to believe, intended to block profanity in articles (that would be extraordinarily dim), nor even to revert page-blankings. That's what we have ClueBot and TawkerBot for, and they do a damn good job of it. This is a different tool, for different situations, which require different responses. I conceive that filters in this extension would be triggered fewer times than once every few hours. — Werdna • talk 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) "
-// longer clarification what is to be targeted. interestingly enough, I think the bulk of the things that are triggered today are precisely the ones Werdna points out as "we are not targeting them".
-And stuff is definitely triggered more often than every few hours
-%TODO Compare with most active filters
-\end{comment}
-
\begin{comment}
\item how many currently trigger which action (disallow, warn, throttle, tag, ..)?
\item how often were filters with different actions triggered? (afl\_actions) (over time) --> abuse\_filter\_log
diff --git a/thesis/references.bib b/thesis/references.bib
index cc94a71..3717f37 100644
--- a/thesis/references.bib
+++ b/thesis/references.bib
@@ -422,7 +422,7 @@
title = {},
year = 2019,
note = {Retreived May 22, 2019 from
- \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_1}}
+ \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_1&oldid=884572675}}
}
@misc{Wikipedia:EditFilterTalkArchiveNameChange,
--
GitLab