Talk:Troll (Internet)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Trolls are thought by some, including themselves, to play some role in the limiting of groupthink, and the prevention of forming any kind of false consciousness. For instance, someone who believed that wikipedia collaborators did not form any kind of 'community' but were instead a 'cabal' would be likely to behave as a troll in forums devoted to community topics.

24, please provide a reference for this claim. AxelBoldt 07:22 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or who you think you're talking to, but the statement is pretty obvious as it stands. Why don't you take a break from censorship, AxelBoldt? You seem to see ghosts under every rock, friend.
It's so obviously wrong to delete reasonable passages and demand some kind of authority for them, and it's so obviously your habit, that there's no reasonable response other than to ignore you. You, AxelBoldt, are a troll.

As the above exchange proves, the noun form of "troll" should be avoided. The article now says so. Should not the term 'troll' refer to a message or an activity, rather than 'a person'?

I am sure that those who 'have trolled' or 'posted a troll' are not actually living under bridges all the time IRL. But, judging from the above, maybe some are. Also it's impossible to know whether most troll messages are actually a person or not, and will become more impossible as trolls get more automated.

Who votes to redefine 'troll' as a verb or as an adjective referring to a message?

I don't, no, thanks. Typically we (at wikipedia) report on usage as it is, instead of trying to steer it. People use "troll" as a noun; it might be incorrect or unpalatable to do so; we should report on it anyway. Koyaanis Qatsi
I agree, in common usage, a troll posts trolls ('Mod that poster down, he's a troll!')

Contents

moved from article

"For instance, someone who believed that Wikipedia collaborators did not form any kind of 'community' but were instead a 'cabal' would be likely to behave as a troll in forums devoted to community topics. The troll thereby develops his/her own false consciousness and spirals into a hell hole of delusions of grandeur.

It is safest to use the term "troll" to apply only to insubstantial irritation, or when a repeated pattern of behavior characteristic of trolls is obvious."

I find this stuff dubious, and highly POV. Im general, I think the quality of this article can be improved. I am considering listing it on peer review, and I would appreciate any substantial additions anyone can make. I am only just learning about the concept, and the article isn't exactly profoundly informative. Jack 08:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Mention of Wikipedia in articles. Note that this is an official policy.
We try to be brutally honest here, even at the risk of offending someone. If someone removed, for instance, a link in an article explaining "cluster fuck" and citing wikipedia as actually 'being' one, it is especially important to put it back, see Wikipedia:profanity and continue to assert that wikipedia has these undesirable characteristics. ... Wikipedia has no credibility if it cannot discuss itself with the same even-handedness as it discusses everything else. It is extremely important ... not to accept the groupthink of the 'community' without a fight. User:The Cave Troll
Nonsense. A page written by a banned user is about as far away from "official policy" as you can get. Angela. 19:42, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Quote from me

"They will not compromise, or listen to reason, but focus rather on flamming (calling other people trolls, for example). From what I understand of the concept of trolling, it's not a person who happens to aggresively champion a POV, or have an alternate interpretation of whats best for an article. Strong sentiment is not a bad thing. Were all a bit of a troll, in some small way or another, whenever we dislike someone, or do something theoretically disturbing. Whats important is that we compromise where neccessary, and resort to references and arbitration (always trying to follow wiki-Rules) rather than name calling and hatefullness when we attempt to handle these cituations we happen to have some feelings about. Many trolls are simply vandals. But from what I understand, a troll is someone who fights over something they do not care about. They are rather interested in harassing a certain user, or upsetting others" Jack 12:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

clarification

Should the definition of a troll involve intent, or not? What about people who are inherently contentious and difficult? I'm not entirely sure from the article if someone who doesn't intend to be difficult, but ends up being so is a troll, or not? Seems a vital distinction to me. Sam Spade 10:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

from my POV, intent is a vital part of the definition of a troll. -- The Anome 10:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think its best for it to be defined that way, because otherwise nearly any of us could be legitimately be labeled a troll due to others perceptions of us as being difficult, regardless of our intent. I'd really like this term to be narrowly and precsisely defined, so that its use as a common flame here on the wiki can be minimized and delegitimized where necessary. Sam Spade 10:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Since I'm here, I will add some comments on that querry about "people who are inherently contentious and difficult". Accurate articles on the latest findings in human behavior are one of Wikipedia's big weaknesses, and they are a group of articles that might best assist in developing a collaborative process. Human behavior is only recenty being defined in terms of biological systems, but that research is heavily slanted toward conclusions that contradict traditional views of moral choice and self-control. Research is discovering a biological basis for recent behavioral findings that suggest behavior is a product of context, not of character.
I can't help but suspect tensions over the slang concept summarized in this article arise from fear of loosing familiar folk-lore concepts that facilitate group control before more accurate premises are thouroughly understood in this setting. A few might let go of the noun "troll" but it is not as easy to let go of assumptions about people being "inherently difficult." Still, the difficulty is usually more inherent to the person in a particular situation than to the person in general. This probably threatens some people because it suggests they could do more to change the behavior of others if they only understood better ways to change the situation. That is hard work we as a people don't yet know how to do very well, and it is easier to play "you broke the rules, you're inherently bad". Stardotstar 07:16, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

having engaged in somewhat troll like behavior

A troll is a hacker for social systems/networks (<> computer systems).

As there are blackhat and whitehat hackers, there are destructive and there are provocative trolls. A provocative trolls goal is to communicate the insight of the weakness and thus make the social system (and possibly others, if the experience is passed on) immune to the observed weakness. A destructive troll has the goal to damage/destroy or get control of a target in order to experience and/or demonstrate his power. Using similiar means to reach their goals, those two groups are theoretically antagonists. But, as far as I know there is no trolling culture (like there is for hackers), so there is little motivation to stay true to your principles.

There is the common misuse of the word, being part of a method to destroy any unwanted/controversial discussion, for example to maintain a powerful position in the community. Trolling is defined by intentions, not by means.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no more effective way to communicate weaknesses in social systems other than exploiting them until they get painful. There is no full-disclosure mailing list for trolls to post in, and for communication-platform-admins and -users to read. Trolls usually have a history of failed communication, of punishment for positively motivated criticism. A fact that supports the development of blackhat trolls.

"Real life trolling"

I removed the lengthy post regarding "Real life trolling." This article is about Internet trolling. Real life trolling should be discussed in its own article. Kingturtle 16:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

role of trolls

Removed:

The role of Internet trolls is also disputed, some viewing them as playing some role in the limiting of groupthink, and the prevention of forming any kind of false consciousness by acting as devil's advocate. One proposed explanation, in light of what was said earlier about "ad hominem" labeling, is that some people label others behaviours that they do not deem suitable as "controversy" or "trolling". Consequently, for instance, someone who believed that Wikipedia collaborators do not form an ordinary 'community' but were instead a 'cabal' would be likely to be labeled as a troll by people who take the Wikipedia seriously.

Attribute to a named advocate, such as a sociologist, perhaps, a famous usenet performance artist, or similar. Martin 02:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is a poorly written paragraph, but asking for a named source is inconsistent with general practices in Wikipeda. I'm not going to restore it or refactor it either, but I do want to note that if Martin is interested enough to bother removing large chunks of text it would be more productive to spend time refactoring or attempting to comprehend the contribution. Anybody can go about removing content. That reflects no skill at all, and is treated as vandalism when done by less popular members. The edit contributes nothing to either the community or to the encyclopedia. Stardotstar 06:12, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
removing dodgy text and asking for citations is standard practice. Martin
Occasionally, joining in with those accused of trolling can expediate their departure or change of behavior if they assume victory in their favor sooner or become confused.

I'm just confused trying to figure out what this means... Martin

Labeling participants in Internet discussions as trolls can serve to perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person who failed to find acceptance by a group, for whatever reason, might readily embrace an identity as a "troll" if the group more readily accepts that identity. An affirmative strategy in dealing with "trolling" behavior is to describe preferred behaviors, to affirm the capacity of a person to perform according to those expectations and to recognize the value of the preferred behavior. This is often difficult for those who use this term because it requires that they lend aid and comfort to those with whom they might disagree. Nonetheless, in most conflicts, for parties to articulate the interests of another party in terms the other party will accept is widely recognized as both a tool of conflict resolution and of persuading opponents to accept an unwelcome viewpoint.

A true opinion. Needs attribution, as above. Martin 02:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restored this paragraph. Anyone familiar with the psychology of conflict resolution can recognize this as a synopsis of basic advice offered in family or marital therapy sessions, in workplace counseling and in counseling settings for other generalized situations where conflict resolution is appropriate. Since this is an article about a slang term in the context of Wikipedia, the demand for precise sourcing is especially disingenuous. It is not consistent with generala practices on Wikipedia, and it is no less sourced than anything else in this article. Stardotstar 05:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer, I should tell you that you are dead wrong about citations. Please see Wikipedia:Cite your sources. →Raul654 06:01, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


You are referring to the article that states There is currently no consistent Wikipedia citation style.
The idiom "dead wrong" and the claim of disinterest don't contribute to your argument. While the one meta-article you cite reflects a proposal of how some people would like to see Wikipedia develop, a review of the vast majority of articles reflects a different practice. Try clicking random pages ten times and see how many unsourced facts are in Wikipedia, compared to how many sourced facts. A demand for sources would seriously slow growth of the project, perhaps to great advantage for quality over quantity. But starting to delete information on this page because it is unsourced is probably not part of a campaign to remove all unsourced material from Wikipedia. A genuine effort to remove unsourced material would be evident in a user's edit history. Perhaps the article you cite as reason to include sources needs to be updated. Or perhaps you can cite articles you have written in which more than half the content is attributed to a specific source.
For the record, I would be more comfortable with a format that relies more on sources, but that is not what is happening, and I am suspicious of editors who selectively delete text based on a non-existent style, especially when they confirm the validity of the information. i.e. "A true opinion." (actually not an opinion, though, but instead it is a therapeutic practice based on controlled research) Stardotstar 06:12, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We don't require citations of sources when articles are written. However, in practice, when someone else challenges an article's claims, the onus is on the person who added it to back it up with reliable sources. If you can't, it gets removed.
As far as the validity of the article I cited, it's not an "unsourced opinion of some people". First, after checking the page history, you'll see that it was written by *many* people (I stopped counting at 12). Second, it's not opinion - that is a policy page. It tells you how you are supposed to do things. If you want to contribute here, you must abide by it. (And now that I've pointed it out to you, you cannot claim ignorance). If you don't like the policy, you can start procedures to get it changed, but I doubt you'll get very far.
Now as far as what I said about you being wrong:
(Your claim) "the demand for precise sourcing ... is not consistent with generala [sic] practices on Wikipedia"
(Wikipedia policy) "Use proper references. References and external links relevant to an article should be collected at the end of the article, with complete information and clearly separated from the rest of the material; see below for a proposed style."
You're right - we don't have sources for a lot of articles that we should. However, when someone asks you for your sources, you had better be able to provide them, or the contentious claims get removed. →Raul654 06:27, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Your tone is quite uncollaborative. The validity of the presentation of common psychological approaches was confirmed by the person who removed it. I am not here to get something. I am here to give. Being impolite to contributors, and piling on legalistic rules in a generally open process betrays something other than disinterested observation. Have you consumed alcohol this evening? Other impolite practices include spell flaming which is citation of others spelling errors in an environment where typographical errors are common. Stardotstar 06:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, you are citing the policy article out of context. The article states "When external sources are consulted in the writing or verification of an article, provide a list of references." No external sources were consulted. The information is so widely recognized that any experienced counselor, as well as the person who removed the text in question recognized its factual basis, so there was no controversy. Stardotstar 06:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And, the phrase use proper references does not imply "always use references." In an environment where references are optional, it asks that referencing not be abused by citing personal essays and such. Wikipedia encourages submissions by authors who have experience in a subject that does not comprise original research. That is what allows Wikipedia to thrive on the contributions of knowledgable editors who can summarize general knowledge without either plagiarizing or conducting original research. I reiterate that demanding compliance with flexible, ambiguous policies interpreted according to the most restrictive of several possible interpretations is an uncharitable response to charitable contributions. Stardotstar 06:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm impressed at your knowledge and well-thoughtout criticisms of wikipedia after less than one day on Wikipedia. Well done. Kingturtle 07:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you suggesting Wikipedia does not routinely attract writers able to quickly review subject matter and present coherent analysis? There appears to be some sort of hidden message in Kingturtle's statement, suggesting intentions on your part that in no way make me comfortable as an experienced writer and analyst offering contributions to a public document. Does this group really have such a difficult time reaching agreement about definitions and social implications of slang terms? It appears to me, especially in light of the follow-up response below, that leaders of this community are afraid they may loose one of their favorite slurs in favor of language requires them to offer mature analysis when working as community leaders. Kingturtle's response can be classified as hazing. Chocolate bar 00:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kingturtle has answered this for me. (Thanks King) Martin 13:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

Please leave the scare quotes out of this article. Find words to express what you are trying to say with them. Kingturtle 06:33, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

May I ask who you are addressing, and what you are referring to as "scare quotes"? Stardotstar 06:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I note that Kingturtle did not resolve the above ambiguity in which vague language was used to demand precise language. Chocolate bar 00:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I think Kingturtle may be confusing "scare quotes" with what I call "mentioned" or "term" quotes (these terms themselves come from <a href="http://www.tei-c.org/">TEI</a> <a href="http://www.tei-c.org/P4X/AI.html">tags for semantics and such</a>). Words are often put in quotes or italicized when being mentioned as words rather than being used as themselves. ("Troll" is a word that refers to..." vs. "He is a troll."). "Scare quotes" on the other hand, if I understand you, are those trendy quotes meant to call attention to a word as not-quite-what-you-want-to-say or as somehow "problematic."

fundamental attribution error

Generally, the term suffers from the fundamental attribution error in that it attributes behavior to a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior.

This is an opinion (and a wrong one). One may believe that trolls troll because of their innate personality (which would be the f.a.e. if wrong). Alternatively, one may believe that trolls troll because of situational influences. Personally, I know that someone may troll on one forum and not troll on another. All this does not invalidate the word "troll". Similarly, someone with two jobs may be a "manager" in one job, and not in another, and calling hir "manager" while sie is a manager is not a case of f.a.e. Martin 13:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the term is slang invalidates it. In analyzing the slang, the verb troll stands, as you say, as a generally accepted slang reference to a somewhat recognized category of behavior, though little academic literature validates the classification. It is a folk taxonomy at best. As a noun, yes the term usually suffers from the fundamental attribution error. Even on the second job, peers would recognize the person as a manager, qualified by experience to manage business in another context. Troll conveys inferences that suggest character attributes as a cause for behavior, wherease manager infers experience and qualification gained through professional development. I will place the sentence in the draft version with the qualifying terms such as infers and usually, then we may debate the merits of the qualifier. Chocolate bar
Surely one could say the same about almost any insult? "the term idiot suffers from the f.a.e., as it attributes behaviour to a person's idiocy rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior". Really, this says more to me about the f.a.e. than it does about internet trolls.
Also, I genuinely don't believe that "troll" carries such inferences - or at least, not to me. Perhaps this is down to your prejudices about troll, rather than about the word itself? Martin 01:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re: Surely one could say the same about almost any insult?
Exactly. Not one, but most sociologists say exactly the same about most insults. It is so common, they called it fundamental. If you don't accept the fundaments of sociology, but recognize troll as a valid behavioral descriptor, I don't believe you are editing an encyclopedia to honesly reflect the status of human knowledge. If you recognize troll as an insult, as you infer in the phrase "almost any insult", then as a noun it necessarily does infer a problem with character, and hence use of the term suffers from the fundamental attribution error.
I suggest this article is not about what your appreciation of insults says to you about the fundamental attribution error, Martin, but rather it is about what scholars have to say about how insults are used in our society. Nor does it have to do with a prejudice on my part about this particular derogatory term; it has to do with what scholars say about insults.
Judging from the stubby appearance of the article on insults, I might assume writers here so far have not shown much interest in the findings of academic inquiries into that form of behavior. When I get done reviewing some other articles on behavioral medicine, maybe I can help out further with articles on language, sociology and behavior. Chocolate bar
Should I change my name to "Fundamental Attribution Error"? JRR Trollkien 10:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Internet troll page has been protected; I have started a draft version at talk:Internet troll/draft that should be linked from Internet troll as per policy. Please note that failure to participate the draft editorial process will result in said page taking over upon unprotection without your interests included. --JRR Trollkien (signature added later)

The above unsigned post does not reflect any policy I have been able to locate in Wikipedia. The stated policies imply that articles remain available for improvements by the general public indefinately. Suggesting that the only accurate version will be one created during an arbitrary pendency established by administrators with a vested interest in the content of the article doesn't invite me to return with whatever knowledge I might have to contribute, to this page or to any other part of this project. Chocolate bar 00:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it was *not* an administrator who said that, it was user JRR Trollkien . →Raul654 00:50, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Obesity of trolls

65-- You added obesity as a characteristic of the stereotypical troll. Would you say this is true? My understanding was that the troll stereotype was normally a very thin, nerdy guy (a la Steve Urkel) usually with an axe to grind due to a lack of romantic success.

Certainly, it's possible that trolls are obese, but I don't think it's part of the troll archetype. Comment? Mike Church 20:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

65's addition was inappropriate. In no case should a slang noun be used as the subject for description in an encyclopedic article describing the function of the slang term. Troll is neccessarily an object in this context. JRR Trollkien (see warning)

This is very foolish. User:AnGelaIs a Troll|Anlaoll 19:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Edit War - Heph, Rick, JRRT and Mark Richards

Please discuss this on the talk page. Mark Richards 01:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that states admins should discuss reversion of vandalism on the talk page first? - Hephaestos|§ 01:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

No, but why do you think this is vandalism? If anything, LT's edits are an improvement. At worst they are no more POV than the existing versions. They are far from vandalism. Mark Richards 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

For example, why is changing this:

Trolls are usually caricatured as socially-inept, obese teenage males, but may just as easily be bitter, disillusioned middle-aged divorcées. Indeed, since intentional trolls (there are no other kinds) normally knowingly flaunt social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast trolls as socially inept when they have proven adept at their goal of inciting conflict.
to this:
Trolls are often caricatured: such prejudices are an example of the fundamental attribution error (attributes behavior to a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior).
vandalism? I don't understand what you are doing. Mark Richards 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The latter is a completely false apologetic placed into the article in an attempt to justify disruption of this website. The former is entirely accurate and NPOV. - Hephaestos|§ 01:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

What? Socially inept obese teenage males or bitter disillusioned middle aged divorcees is your idea of a "neutral point of view"? That passage is totally inapropriate - can you show evidence of this 'usual caricaturing'? I think this whole passage has to go, but if you want it in, the second version is prefereable to the first. Mark Richards 01:15, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Heph - please discuss reverts on the talk page before you make them repeatedly. You can't get away with claiming your POV as fact. Mark Richards 02:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Nor can you. If this continues we'll have to request page protection. - Hephaestos|§ 02:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There will be no need for that if you discuss your reverts on the talk page. I object to your characterisation of the intent and motivation as a fact, when clearly it is a point of view. Why do you disagree with that? Yours, Mark Richards 02:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
What other intents and/or motivations would you postulate? - Hephaestos|§ 02:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I would not speculate, but there are plenty of other motivations listed lower in the article. There is also debate in the article about the merit and purpose of trolls, as well as the definition. The point is that there is not one definition, motivation or role of 'trolls', and the article should reflect this diversity, not merely your point of view. Mark Richards 02:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The "diversity" you're talking about is simply a difference between actual trolls and those who are not (Devil's advocates, confused new users, etc.) who might be mistakenly identified as such. This is fairly well addressed in the article already. - Hephaestos|§ 02:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, clearly that is your point of view, and clearly there are others who disagree. Trolls frequently self identify themselves as having other motivations. There cannot be a statement of fact about another person's motivation, you simply can't know - it is always a point of view. Your circular logic of 'if they beleive this they are trolls, if they don't, they are not' is no use at all, since we cannot know another's motivation - we must go by their behavior. Mark Richards 02:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm somewhat amused that you think the "others who disagree" and "trolls who claim to have other motivations" are doing something other than simply lying. That's kind of the point. Please read the article and try to gain an understanding of what a troll actually is. - Hephaestos|§ 02:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amused that you are able to say that anyone who denies the motivation you are ascribing them are lying - surely you can see that motivation is an inherently POV area? Mark Richards 02:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I might be more inclined to if you'd produce any possible motivation besides the one described in the article, which you haven't. - Hephaestos|§ 02:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Under the section titled 'motivation', the article lists these:

  1. Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
  2. Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and school. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive, confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of "tough love" guidance in an anonymous forum.
  3. Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock puppeteering, where the "bad cop" is a sock-puppet troll) or, alternatively, play the role of "Devil's advocate" to strengthen opposing convictions (with which he or she usually actually agrees).
  4. Test the integrity of a system against "social attacks" or other forms of misbehavior: For example, blanking a Wikipedia page in order to see how quickly it will be reinstated. (Please don't do this.)
  5. Amusement: To some people, the thought of a 70-year-old Internet user being sent to a sexually explicit or gross image is genuinely funny. Individuals of this sort are generally thought immature and annoying.
  6. Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as, when a sort of conformism settles, shocking people out of it.
  7. Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as trolls, but misunderstood humorists.
  8. Personal attacks against one particular user or group of users.
  9. Self-promotion.

It is clear that there are many possible motivations, not just the one you ascribe. Maybe everyone else is lying though. Mark Richards 02:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "besides the ones described in the article." So what's wrong with the article again? - Hephaestos|§ 03:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Your last edit was inaccurate. The article clearly states in what circumstances one may appear to be a troll without being one (see the paragraph beginning "Of course, not everyone..."). Trolling is not a "clever way of improving discussion" as its effect is to disrupt discussion. - Hephaestos|§ 03:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, my problem is that you are still saying 'anyone who is motivated the way I think is a troll, anyone else is not', which is a circular definition. If it looks like a troll, and quacks like a troll, for all practical purposes it is a troll, because we can't know its motivation. Disrupting discussion could potentially improve it - the meaning of 'improve' itself is highly pov! Mark Richards

OK Heph, let's step back from this, because I am sure we are both trying to be reasonable. I was under the impression that, in the first paragraph of this article, you wanted to define trolls as folks who were motivated by causing conflict. I wanted to define trolls by their behavior, and not get too into the motivation. Trolls generally do cause conflict, but their motivation may or may not be the causing of conflict per se. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but want to back off from an edit war, since I don't think we are being very productive here. I'll come back to it tomorrow and have another look. Take her easy, Mark Richards 03:12, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

OK you too. See you tomorrow maybe. - Hephaestos|§ 03:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Trolling and Terrorism

OK, here we go - talking point. Take a look at terrorism. You and I can agree that a terrorist is bad, and that their motivation must be to cause chaos, but from their point of view, things are very different. I think I feel that this article should treat trolling (frivilous by comparison) in a similar way. Most reasonable people would consider it is bad, but those doing it think differently. Let me know what you think. Mark Richards 03:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

First paragraph POV

I changed Trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion; however authentic trolling merely derails discourse and erodes civility. to Trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion; however their detractors insist that authentic trolling merely derails discourse and erodes civility.
I can't get my head around why you think this is established fact - can you point to any evidence? without that it's just your opinion. Thanks, Mark Richards 15:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
That last edit works, thanks. - Hephaestos|§ 16:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Mark Richards 16:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Thomas

I like your edits Thomas - this page needs a lot more cleanup and streamlining! Thanks, Mark Richards 16:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

-- Thanks! Tom ---

Usage of Slang Monikers

JRR has reinstated the paragraph in usage saying it's about the usage of slang terms -- apologies if I misread this as about motives for trolling. However, I still can't understand the paragraph:

Reasons for the use of slang monikers in Internet-mediated discussion explored in peer reviewed literature include a sense of anonymity or impersonal perceptions of others, which tend to reduce perceptions of the value of another person in a dialogue. On the other hand, customs of discourse, or etiquette, that originated in physical communities, where people are actually exposed to some danger of bodily harm (cf. epistemic community), are often applied naively by newcomers who are not used to the range of views that people are often comfortable expressing online, especially anonymously.

I'm still uncomfortable with the phrase "explored in peer viewed literature" appearing without citation. Also, I don't understand how the general usage of slang is relevant to this particular discussion or how this paragraph fits into the rest of the usage section. Is there an article about internet slang in general where this would fit better?

Can JRR or someone else please clarify how this fits into the discussion of the usage of trolling? I'll help fit this into the rest of the section, but first I need to understand what it means and how it relates.

Tom ---

We should not use the phrase "peer viewed literature" without citing sources. I'd say remove this unless we can make it more intelligable and reference it. Mark Richards 18:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Please see above discussion. A format that relies more on sources would be a good thing, but I am suspicious of editors who start deleting informations from this page because it is unsourced, without a genuine effort for adding proper references to all unsourced information on Wikipedia.
I don't believe Mark Richards or I were advocated deleting the information because it was uncited; we were simply discussing the use of the phrase "peer reviewed literature," which implies academic rigor, without the citation that traditionally justifies said implication. I have tried to edit the section in question so that it doesn't include this phrase but still represents the theories expressed. Once we can attribute the theories to particular pieces of "peer reviewed literature", there won't be any problem.
See above discussion: "The fact that the term is slang invalidates it. In analyzing the slang, the verb troll stands, as you say, as a generally accepted slang reference to a somewhat recognized category of behavior, though little academic literature validates the classification. It is a folk taxonomy at best."

I don't understand your point. If it is 'peer reviewed' we should be able to cite the references, if not, lets not call it that. We should eb able to attribute these theories in some way, otherwise it is just speculation. Mark Richards 19:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

bodily harm

The point of mentioning bodily harm is to distinguish between epistemic community with no-body at risk and real physical bodily communities where some-body needs protecting which have etiquettes, governance, politics etc. Confusing the two leads to a very oppressive ideology called virtual community.

I'd consider it if it was explained a little more clearly - can you site anything to support it? Mark Richards 20:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

anti-shock phenomenon

I suggest moving this section to shock site, which is a more specific article. It doesn't really fit into the general discussion of Internet trolling.

I agree - it serves no purpose here. Mark Richards 20:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I took out the alt.syntax.tactical link because there is no article for it. Are you going to write one? Mark Richards 21:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Different trolls in different internet media

One thing that springs to mind for this is that trolling is a very different phenomenon in different media. Usenet trolling is totally different from Slashdot trolling, diferent again from the trolls a wiki gets. This article needs to make this distinction. An interesting article I found is here. Mark Richards 23:38, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, *internet* media. At first I thought you meant all "Different Media," so I wrote this: observation on Gadflies: Some trolls think they're fulfilling such a role. And speaking of different media, that's where the claim may carry the most merit: I'm thinking of newspaper columnists, and other commentators. Interesting that the actual gadfly page is about the insect. Perhaps it needs some elaboration.... done. :) Krupo 03:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Now I've added in some comments based on that article. Interesting, I hadn't thought of things that way before... Krupo 04:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed

As Internet bots improve, they are also increasingly able to play troll, increasing the probability that the responder is being drawn into some kind of time-wasting trap or marketing scam. For instance, an actual person engaged in a hot debate with a troll may be suddenly backed up by another real person, who later on uses the trust gained to sell worthless insurance.

Is there any evidence of this? Mark Richards 21:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I've seen 'normal' newsgroup people design automated scripting software that uses a dictionary of terms to spit out amusing insults/trolls. Never seen this done on a serious scale, though. Haven't seen an actual bot, that's for sure. Krupo 03:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)