Basically we take the internet meaning. A troll is someone who tries to make trouble in an
on-line context. "Troublemaker" is a synonym. We are familiar with people who
are aways trying to start an argument. Pit people against one another. It has to do with
bad faith. A troll, will sometimes take a position they don't hold just to set
everyone else off. Sometimes this behavior is uncontrollable but most people who have it
in their repertoire are aware of it and can avoid it. If it weren't so common and
disruptive we wouldn't have to have a word for it with the potential for misuse.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Flame Viper [mailto:flameviper12@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:04 AM
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Troll, troll, troll
The definition of "troll" in Wikipedia is a fairly broad one.
The definition itself of "intentionally aggravating" is itself plastic and can
be interpreted differently. For example, I might consider someone a troll if they
continually ask me simple questions. They might be doing it on purpose, or they may well
be asking questions that they believed to be legitimate.
The problem here is that the word "troll" is being thrown around like a
dodgeball made of cement. It's essentially an insult, and worse, it will degrade the
reputation of whoever was accused. However, it is not considered a personal attack as long
as it is indirect ("Flameviper is trolling" as opposed to "Flameviper is a
troll"), and even then, calling someone a troll in their block summary is still OK.
But everybody's definition of "troll" is different. For example:
Bob is a bold editor who likes to make broad sweeping changes to articles and discuss them
later if there's a problem. George is more cautious and tends to ask for consensus on
talk pages before making edits.
Bob makes a broad formatting change on [[Choline]], and George (who is watchlisting that
page) freaks out and reverts. Bob, of course, doesn't get why and reverts to his
version. George tries to start a discussion with Bob, and Bob sees George as a nitpicking
control freak who wants to go over every grammar change. George, on the other hand, sees
Bob as an inconsiderate, crude person who blindly stumbles through massive changes.
To either editor, the other could be considered a "troll", and what will likely
happen is this: Bob, wanting to get this crap over with, starts "attacking"
George's carefulness on the talk page ("It's a wiki, see WP:BOLD and stop
obsessing"), George feels hurt by this even though it wasn't intended that way,
and the discussion degenerates into a flamewar. Immediately, George unsheathes the master
insult and calls Bob a TROLL. All hell breaks loose, Bob gets blocked for massive
disruption, and everyone loses.
The problem here is that different people have different opinions and different methods of
doing things. Somebody who prefers to get to the point and be blunt with people could be
seen as crude and disruptive, and even though they're being perfectly honest, would be
in trouble for aggravation.
I might think you're a jerk, you might think I'm a jerk, but the fact is that
people get aggravated. Just because you don't like someone's opinions or style
doesn't mean that they're being that way just to annoy you; it's just the way
they are.
And if they aren't doing anything wrong, there's no reason to brand other people
as troublemakers when they're trying to do something differently from you.
I came to this website to write an encyclopedia, damn it, not engage in petty flamewars
and try to sugar-coat everything I said so I didn't get blocked for trolling and
disruption.
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l