Wikipedia talk:Vandals versus Trolls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Hmmm
I think in calling someone either a "vandal" or a "troll" you are making a judgement about that person's motivation. I agree there is a distinction in that trolls take more interest in people's reactions. And they, like "real" trolls, also tend to stay longer in the same place. (On the other hand, I have often seen people called "trolls" and "vandals", on WP and elsewhere, merely because someone disgreed with thier views.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with "all trolling is vandalism". This simply isn't the case. Yes trolls make nonconstructive edits, but thats not vandalism, just white noise. Theres a difference between poking the bear and killing it. Think outside the box 11:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- See Troll (Internet), everything else is covered in our personal attack policy and the vandalism policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure where this essay is going. It reads more than an individual attempting to get to grips with a distinction between troll and vandal than something that would be useful to the community. It might be better off in user space than mainspace. Nice try though. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree. In general we only concern ourselves with people's actions here, not their motivations. It seems to me that a person could have very good motives and still commit vandalism. Say for instance, someone changed the opening sentence of Hitler's article to say: "Adolf Hitler was the most evil person who ever lived." The motive could be very good, but it would still be vandalism. Steve Dufour 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll move this to my userspace if people don't think this belongs in the Wikipedia mainspace.--Miss Pussy Galore 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think it's fine where it is, but I'm not an expert on WP policy. Steve Dufour 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Just unconstructive edits?
A quick thought - how about vandals/trolls who start by making good edits in order to give the impression they are a genuine good faith editor, before then causing disruption. These types do exist and I therefore doubt vandals and trolls can be described simply as making unconstructive edits. Whitstable 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, we need to be mainly concerned about if an edit is constructive or not; not about judging people. Steve Dufour 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, on second thoughts - both words/descriptions are liable to cause more damage than solve problems Whitstable 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is small
Perhaps there is more to be said regarding the issue of trolls vs. vandals? I tried to add the stub tag, but an admin reverted it and warned me for vandalism. 24.68.253.80 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture of vandal
Why is Thor as the picture of the vandal? The painting doesn't look vandalized and thor doesn't appear to be vandalizing anything. William Ortiz (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was the picture used in Wikipedia:Don't insult the vandals so I just used it. It's probably meant as a reference to the ancient barbarian tribe called the Vandals.--Urban Rose 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
