# Meeting 09.05.2019 - Presentation at the HCC Research Meeting
## Feedback
* beware of wording: "vandalism" is quite a harsh term (see also naming discussion edit filters), try to avoid it especially in contexts where it's not clear whether we are indeed dealing with vandalism (potential harmful edits); maybe replace with "quality assurance/control" wherever suitable
* of the 152 edit filter managers on EN wikipedia:
* how many are admins?
* how many run their own bots?
* if an editor is both an edit filter manager and a bot developer: in which cases would they decide to implement a bot and in which a filter?
* stick to research questions from Confluence, they are already carefully crafted and narrowed down as appropriate
* aggregation: clarify for myself what is the argument/the story/the big picture; make sure I still see the forrest and not only a bunch of single trees
* start with headers from the thesis's outline
* methodology: what are the sources of knowledge
* literature: what insights have we won from it?
* documentation (Wikipedia, MediaWiki pages): what have we learnt here
* data (filters stats, REGEX patterns): what do the filters actually do?
* people didn't like the "1st line of defense" (concerning bots) wording^^; but as a matter of fact, if we stick with it, it's factually incorrect, since the "1st line of defense" are actually the edit filters
* how stable is the edit filter managers group? how often are new editors accepted? (who/how nominates them? maybe there aren't very many accepted, but then again if only 2 apply and both are granted the right, can you then claim it's exclusive?)
* Question: why are the filters still used, when there are all these fancy ML mechanisms?
* hypothesis: because it's simple! REGEXes are generally easier to understand than ML algorithms; it lowers the participation barriers
* add to Long List of Interesting Questions: is there a qualitative difference between complaints of bots and complaints of filters?
* where is the thesis going?
* should there be some recommended guidelines based on the insights?
* or some design recommendations?
* or maybe just a framework for future research: what are questions we just opened?; we still don't know the answer to and should be addressed by future research?
* an idea for the presi/written text:
begin and end every part (section/paragraph) with a question: what question do I want to answer here? what question is still open?
