[Wikipedia-l] Further replies

(Sorry, the post from me consisting just of three quoted lines was just a slip of the fingers!) Reponses below to Chuck Smith and The Cunctator. I agree 100% that we should not have to waste our time on issues about trolls. Unfortunately, we do--it's only by raising consciousness about the existence of trolls and their methods that we can respond to them appropriately and effectively. Just about the only effective thing you can do in response to trolls is to name and shame them (i.e., unmask them), and then ignore them and encourage others to ignore them. But unmasking them really is an important thing to do, for those people who continue to encourage them. Anyway, I'm pretty much done doing all the unmasking I will be volunteering to do; after this, I'll shut up and ignore further blathering from the miscreants. Then, perhaps, we'll have peace, Chuck. Gee thanks, Chuck. :-) I don't think you're a troll either! :-) That's precisely the goal of a troll: get the more valuable members of a forum (or a project, in this case) to drop out and render the project useless. See this, about the old alt.syntax.tactical group: http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html There is plenty of evidence that this is precisely what Craig is trying to do. (24's first name is Craig. Because Craig corresponded with me in the past and told me that he wrote "natural point of view," and after I did a Google search, I was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what his name, occupation, etc. are. We haven't decided how and whether we want to unmask him; we were hoping that the threat of unmasking him would make him go away. Actually, we're hoping that private negotiation will produce some useful results.) So, anyway, please don't drop out. Well, we can start by encouraging in each other the healthy habit of *not feeding trolls* (after pointing out that they're trolls). But, since this is a content-generation project, we also have to do damage control. We have to be bold in undoing the troll's faux submissions. Do not discuss your changes with the troll; that will only encourage him. That's what trolls live for! We hope like hell that the trolls will leave when they are treated like trolls (i.e., ignored). If they don't, eventually, you'll have to kick them out on pain of losing the most valuable members of the project. Sorry, don't shoot the messenger--that's just how trolls and trolling works. It's been happening for a long time now, and old Internet hands know the drill. It's just that we on Wikipedia have not been thinking of the possibility that trolls might attack the project, as they do quite consciously attack mailing lists and newsgroups, because we haven't gotten used to the idea of applying the concept of troll to Wikipedia. But it's high time we did. It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack. That's a very important distinction. I'd like to reply to this for the sake of those who might find what Cunctator has to say plausible. Cunctator seems to maintain, puzzlingly (or not), that 24 is not a troll. I find it interesting that you and Michael Irwin are the only people to defend him, Cunctator. I think he has been treated with far more respect than he deserves. Well, that's how people become when they are being trolled and don't realize it. It's what trolls live for. Surely you know that, Cunctator; everybody with much experience on the Internet does. Actually, I agree with this. This sort of troll will fall into the rhetoric of apocalypse if people calling him a troll. That's how this sort of troll operates. Strange. It seems obvious to me that he really hates Wikipedia: he hates the neutral point of view policy that defines it, he hates the fact that there are a lot of academics on board who can speak authoritatively on subjects that he can't, he hates the "ontology" behind the selection of topics, and on and on. That's why, as you would know if you were paying attention, people keep suggesting that we give him his own wiki. But he doesn't want his own wiki. He wants to change Wikipedia so radically that it would be destroyed. Given all this, it is ludicrous to claim that he "obviously *likes* Wikipedia." This comment is amazing, and in the game you're playing, Cunctator, a false move. It reduces your "I am not a troll, just a misunderstood softie" credibility greatly. So let's analyze this a bit. Craig's stated his intentions; there's no need to guess at or interpret them. He wants to get rid of the neutral point of view, academics, me, and seemingly everyone who disagrees with his "natural point of view" nonsense. That is tantamount to destroying the project as we know it. Now explain to me, Cunctator (sure would be nice to know your real name): how is it that by "embracing him" and "showing him love" we would accomplish *anything* of use? Since he is a troll (or do you *actually* need proof of that, Cunctator?), it would only delight him and encourage him in his trollishness. Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop behaving trollishly? Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a non-troll if we love and respect him? What your comment above seems to imply is that he, in fact, *isn't* a troll, and perhaps even that there is no such thing as a troll. Let us know, Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet? I doubt I'll get an answer out of you on that one. If I do, it should be very interesting to read. No, it's clear enough. Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot. He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with trolls by showing them love and respect. Cunctator might protest that he does not know all these things. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from such protestations. Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for yourself. We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you. So you have sympathy for him. Isn't that nice. I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and Michael Irwin. You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is a troll are just being defensive! Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive," whatever that means. In short, their concerns are overblown and generally unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness. What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say. How good of you, Cunctator. How could anyone who is willing to recognize publicly that others might regard his thoughts as worth little, who is willing to laughingly and sheepishly acknowledge that others *might* think he himself is a troll, fail to be a respectable, valuable, important member of the project?--Indeed, how? Cunctator, you have my permission to place this entire reply to you on your own delightfully trollish hall of fame page, here: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:The+Cunctator/Bias+Talk I know you'll want to. But don't post parts of it. Post the *whole* thing. I insist. Supply *context*, Cunctator, it helps readers to understand events fully. --Larry