<html><head><meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark"></head><body><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">% ---------------------------------------------------
% ----- Conclusion of the template
% ----- for Bachelor-, Master thesis and class papers
% ---------------------------------------------------
%  Created by C. Müller-Birn on 2012-08-17, CC-BY-SA 3.0.
%  Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Computer Science, Human Centered Computing.
%
\chapter{Conclusion}
\label{chap:conclusion}

%Summary
The present thesis just lay the ground work for future edit filters research.
I gave an initial overview and summarised/showed/pointed out interesting paths/framework for future research (syn!).

% TODO Refer back to title! Who is allowed to publish? Who decides?

%Outlook
According to the Wikipedian community people adding references to Brazilian aardvarks or &lt;inser-another-hoax here&gt; preferably shall not publish at all.
Edit filters are not the ideal mechanism to deal with this type of disruption:
they can warn editors adding information that their contribution does not contain any references (or outright disallow such contributions), but that was pretty much it. %TODO look into all filters tagges as "hoaxing"
However, what edit filters can do more effectively is prevent someone from moving XXX pages to titles containing ``ON WHEELS'', thus sparing users the need to track down and undo these changes, allowing them to use their time more productively by for example fact checking unverified edits and thus (syn) reducing the number of fake aardvarks and increasing the overall credibility of the project.

It is impressive how in under 20 years ``a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia'' to quote Anrew Lih~\cite{}. %TODO verify how big is Wikipedia and whether it's the biggest collection ever.
This was possible, among other things, because there was one Wikipedia to which everybody contributed.
As the project and its needs for quality control grew, a lot of processes became more centralised. %TODO verify
It is, at the end, easier to maintain power and control in a centralised infrastructure.
However, centralisation facilitates not only the contribution of everyone (tm) towards a common goal—creating the world's biggest knowledge database, but also control.
It is not an accident that at the very introduction of the edit filters extension, critical voices expressed concern that a large scale censorship infrastructure is being installed. %TODO cite!
If there were multiple comparable projects, you had to censor all of them in order to silence people.
The debate is not trivial/petty/insignificant: whose knowledge is entered and who decides what is knowledge worth preserving.
It is more relevant than ever: the European Parliament basically voted the introduction of upload filters on the Internet just couple of months ago. %TODO give more details on Copyright directive

Despite the famous neutral point of view and tralala, Wikipedia is the first go-to source of information for a vast quantity of people all over the world today.
As such it is distinctly relevant for the shaping of public opinion, and inherently political.
Artefacts do have politics and it is up to us to decide what values we embed in the systems we create. %TODO refine

% Refer to the rumour about gendering filter on German Wikipedia

\begin{comment}
Special attention: following edit filters from DE Wikipedia:
196 : "US-amerikanisch -&gt; amerikanisch ([[WP:RS\#Korrektoren]])"
and 197: "amerikanisch -&gt; US-amerikanisch ([[WP:RS\#Korrektoren]])"
"Korrektoren sind besonders gebeten, sich an die hier vereinbarten Regeln zu halten. In Fällen, in denen verschiedene Schreibweisen zulässig sind, werden Korrektoren um taktvolle Zurückhaltung gebeten: Es ist kein guter Stil, in einer schlüssig formulierten Passage eine zulässige in eine andere zulässige Schreibweise zu ändern." from \url{https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rechtschreibung#Korrektoren}
Both are log only filters;
and it's a political fight

%In a way, not taking a side is positioning in itself.
% Values, Lessig! --&gt; check copyright blogpost
% think about what values we embed in what systems and how; --&gt; Lessig (and also Do Artifacts Have Politics)


%"Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. "
%(comes from assume good faith?)

% The merits and perils of centralisation: the project can get this big because there is *one* Wikipedia everyone can edit (and a lot of people do), but it also centralises power and the possibility to silence people --&gt; censorship is possible/much easier in a centralised setting

\url{http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikicodeislaw}
on software is political; the software that Wikipedia runs on is political; who writes it? what values do they embed in it? (cmp also Code)

"Wikipedia’s biggest problems have come when it’s strayed from this path, when it’s given some people official titles and specified tasks. Whenever that happens, real work slows down and squabbling speeds up. But it’s an easy mistake to make, so it gets made again and again.

Of course, that’s not the only reason this mistake is made, it’s just the most polite. The more frightening problem is that people love to get power and hate to give it up. Especially with a project as big and important as Wikipedia, with the constant swarm of praise and attention, it takes tremendous strength to turn down the opportunity to be its official X, to say instead “it’s a community project, I’m just another community member”."

\cite{GeiRib2010}
"We should not fall into the trap of speaking of bots and
assisted editing tools as constraining the moral agency of
editors"

* Think about: what's the computer science take on the field? How can we design a "better"/more efficient/more user friendly system? A system that reflects particular values (vgl Code 2.0, Chapter 3, p.34)?


Alternative approaches to community management:
compare with Surviving the Eternal September paper~\cite{KieMonHill2016}
"importance of strong
systems of norm enforcement made possible by leadership,
community engagement, and technology."

"emphasizing decentralized moderation" //all community members help enforce the norms
"ensuring enough leadership capacity is available
when an influx of newcomers is anticipated."
"Designers may
benefit by focusing on tools to let existing leaders bring others
on board and help them clearly communicate norms."
"designers should support an ecosystem of accessible and ap-
propriate moderator tools."

\end{comment}

%************************************************************************

\begin{comment}
\section{The bigger picture: Upload filters}

Criticism: threaten free speech, freedom of press and creativity

edit filters implemented an infrastructure that enables censorship

The planned introduction of upload filters by the EU copyright reform is seen critically by Wikimedia Germany:
\begin{figure}
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pics/Blackout_of_wikipediade_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_-_March_2019.png}
  \caption{Blackout of wikipedia.de by Wikimedia Deutschland}~\label{fig:blackout-upload-filters}
\end{figure}

via
\url{https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abschaltung_der_deutschsprachigen_Wikipedia_am_21._M%C3%A4rz_2019#/media/File:Blackout_of_wikipedia.de_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_-_March_2019.png}

see also
\url{https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/20/four-wikipedias-to-black-out-over-eu-copyright-directive/}
"Volunteer editor communities in four language Wikipedias—German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak—have decided to black out the sites on 21 March in opposition to the current version of the proposed EU Copyright Directive.

Those language editions of Wikipedia will redirect all visitors to a banner about the directive, blocking access to content on Wikipedia for 24 hours. "
"These independent language communities decided to black out in the same way most decisions are made on Wikipedia—through discussion and consensus, "

and
\url{https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/28/we-do-not-support-the-eu-copyright-directive-in-its-current-form-heres-why-you-shouldnt-either/}

timeline
\url{https://edri.org/upload-filters-status-of-the-copyright-discussions-and-next-steps/}

\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Positions}

Interesting fact: there are edit filters that try to precisely identify the upload of media violating copyrights

%TODO refer to Lessig, Chapter 10 when making the upload filter commentary
% think about what values are embedded how in what systems (Lessig)

From talk archive:
"Automatic censorship won't work on a wiki. " // so, people already perceive this as censorship; user goes on to basically provide all the reasons why upload filters are bad idea (Interlanguage problems, no recognition of irony, impossibility to discuss controversial issues); they also have a problem with being blocked by a technology vs a real person

Freedom of speech concerns
" Do we think that automatons have the judgement to apply prior restraint to speech? Do we think they should be allowed to do so even if they can be imbued with excellent judgement? We don't allow the government to apply prior restrain to speech, why would we build robots to do it? Laziness?

TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)"

\cite{Gillespie2010}

Upload filters on YouTube
* censure sexual content
* copyright:
"ContentID, which allows copy-
right owners to automatically search for audio or video they believe matches their intel-
lectual property and automatically issue takedown notices to those users"  // how does this work

"The videos targeted were not only copies of WMG-owned
works, but also amateur videos using their music in the background, or musicians paying
tribute to a band by playing live along with the commercial recording as a backing track"
"This kind of content fingerprinting, being both easy
and oblivious to nuance, encourages these kinds of shotgun tactics." //compare blog post on upload filters
\end{comment}

</pre></body></html>