There. I said it. It's a pretentious, self-important heap.
Why? Because it insists on the existence of "trolls". You see, we have [[WP:AGF]], but then we also have Trolling. This, apparently, is where you go on a website and piss off people for the lulz*. Of course, there are trolls on the internet. But this can't be confirmed.
By definition, someone is a troll when they are annoying you with malicious intent. You can't tell someone's intent when you're across the Internet, so that can basically be assumed. If you like someone, you can say that they were acting in good faith, while if you don't like them, you can take the most innocuous of actions and say that they were doing it in bad faith.
Basically, the word "troll" means "person who annoys me". So by definition, it's an extremely subjective label. And when you try to have objective policy based on a subjective definition, you get a shitstorm**. You have people being labelled as "trolls" because they had the misfortune to annoy someone. And worse, they can't prove to anyone that they aren't a troll because of [[WP:DENY]]. This essentially states that if someone yells "TROLL!" then the person in question immediately becomes Satan incarnate, and will never again have a fair chance to do anything on equal footing with anyone else.
It's fine to ignore intentionally annoying people who try to get a rise out of you, but when you're on the Internet, it doesn't fucking** work. You can't tell someone's intent, and to try is to fail. IRC is a great example.
So I get on IRC, right? Freenode. The FOSS network. I join some Wikipedia channels; #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, and maybe another, I dunno. Well, because I'm banned on Wikipedia, everyone thinks I'm a "troll". So, despite the fact that I'm having a perfectly civil conversation (or I may well be idling in the channel), JohnReaves/ST47/Cometstyles/kmccoy et al. immediately, upon entering the channel themselves, op themselves and ban me for trolling. So, fairly pissed, I /join #wikimedia-ops. Here's a typical conversation. [INFO] YOU (Flameviper) have joined #wikipedia-en (or whatever). <Flameviper> Hey <Otherperson> Hi. <Flameviper> How's it going? <Otherperson> Fine. (about 15-30 minutes elapse) [INFO] Op has joined the channel. <Randomperson> Flameviper is banned. He's a troll. <Flameviper> Please stop bringing that up every time I'm in the channel <Randomperson> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flameviper <-- HE'S A BANNED TROLL [INFO] Mode +o Op by ChanServ [INFO] Mode +b Flameviper*!*@* by Op [INFO] Op has kicked Flameviper from #wikipedia-en (Flooding, 4chan/ED trolling) [INFO] You are banned from this channel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] YOU (Flameviper) have joined #wikimedia-ops. <Flameviper> Hello. <Op> Hello <Flameviper> I was just banned in #[insert channel here]? <Op> Yes. <Flameviper> Why? <Op> You were trolling. <Flameviper> Excuse me? <Op> [[WP:DENY]] <Flameviper> You're not making any sense. <Flameviper> you're just tossing about random accusations. <Op> You provoke us in the channel <Op2> Should we ban him? <Op> Okay. <Op3> Fine by me. <Flameviper> What the hell? I'm trying to have a civil discussion! [INFO] Mode +o Op by ChanServ <Flameviper> If you want me to leave, you could just ask. [INFO] Mode +b Flameviper*!*@* by Op [INFO] Op has kicked Flameviper from #wikimedia-ops (Leave.) [INFO] You are banned from this channel.
LOL FUCKING WUT. See, this is the kind of thing that happens constantly. I enter a channel, people create drama because they don't like me, and then they tell me "You create drama." If I didn't get banned constantly, I wouldn't bitch about being banned. -----
Summary: You can't label people trolls based on the fact that they annoy you. "Troll" is a subjective term, and thus by definition, and judgement based on someone being a troll is inherently unfair and biased.
Notes: * "Lulz" is a widely-used Internet term. Although most people know this, they usually use it as a reason to accuse someone of being an "ED troll". ** If the offensive language offends you, I kindly invite you to GTFO.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Flameviper, you just proved that trolls exist :o)
Guy (JzG)
Flameviper Velifang wrote:
There. I said it. It's a pretentious, self-important heap.
Why? Because it insists on the existence of "trolls". You see, we have [[WP:AGF]], but then we also have Trolling. This, apparently, is where you go on a website and piss off people for the lulz*. Of course, there are trolls on the internet. But this can't be confirmed.
By definition, someone is a troll when they are annoying you with malicious intent. You can't tell someone's intent when you're across the Internet, so that can basically be assumed. If you like someone, you can say that they were acting in good faith, while if you don't like them, you can take the most innocuous of actions and say that they were doing it in bad faith.
Basically, the word "troll" means "person who annoys me". So by definition, it's an extremely subjective label. And when you try to have objective policy based on a subjective definition, you get a shitstorm**. You have people being labelled as "trolls" because they had the misfortune to annoy someone. And worse, they can't prove to anyone that they aren't a troll because of [[WP:DENY]]. This essentially states that if someone yells "TROLL!" then the person in question immediately becomes Satan incarnate, and will never again have a fair chance to do anything on equal footing with anyone else.
It's fine to ignore intentionally annoying people who try to get a rise out of you, but when you're on the Internet, it doesn't fucking** work. You can't tell someone's intent, and to try is to fail. IRC is a great example.
[..... continues]
I do seem to remember having a good, sensible conversation with Flameviper on IRC once but he was not a model user by any means. There was some name-calling and/or incivility as I remember and it took some time in order to get the thing on-topic but once we were there, the rest of the conversation went well. Unfortunately, but understandably, not all people are willing to spend this time when there are people who are possibly easier to interact with also needing help. If Flameviper wishes to become a more respected user, he should ensure that he is courteous and respects others as much as possible.
G Donato
On 07/11/2007, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I do seem to remember having a good, sensible conversation with Flameviper on IRC once but he was not a model user by any means. There was some name-calling and/or incivility as I remember and it took some time in order to get the thing on-topic but once we were there, the rest of the conversation went well. Unfortunately, but understandably, not all people are willing to spend this time when there are people who are possibly easier to interact with also needing help. If Flameviper wishes to become a more respected user, he should ensure that he is courteous and respects others as much as possible.
There are querulous people on IRC who don't understand how querulous they are and won't go away. A Pavolvian policy (tolerate until they're being actively a pain in the backside or do specific annoying things) can keep things down to a slow simmer IME.
- d.
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:40:44 +0000, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I do seem to remember having a good, sensible conversation with Flameviper on IRC once but he was not a model user by any means.
The thing is, the post was *a blatant troll* in the classic sense; the essay at [[WP:DENY]] is actually rather tame and mentions trolls twice: once in a humorous image caption, and once as a link to an essay explaining what a troll is.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 7, 2007 11:07 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The thing is, the post was *a blatant troll* in the classic sense; the essay at [[WP:DENY]] is actually rather tame and mentions trolls twice: once in a humorous image caption, and once as a link to an essay explaining what a troll is.
The way I read WP:DENY is as an essay on how to deal with trolls. So even if the actual *word* is not mentioned that often, the enitire page deals with the issue.
Michel Vuijlsteke
On Nov 7, 2007 2:22 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke mvuijlst@gmail.com wrote:
The way I read WP:DENY is as an essay on how to deal with trolls. So even if the actual *word* is not mentioned that often, the enitire page deals with the issue.
I think it deals with persistent troublemakers and the innate need some of them have to be recognised and noticed - and how we might learn not to reward them in ways that encourage them to do it again and again.
Whether or not 'persistent troublemaker' equates to 'troll' is dependent on one's definition of troll. By my definition, not all persistent troublemakers are trolls; the repeated blatant vandaliser, for instance, isn't a troll by my definition, yet they may be as much encouraged by recognition.
-Matt
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 03:55:13 -0800, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think it deals with persistent troublemakers and the innate need some of them have to be recognised and noticed - and how we might learn not to reward them in ways that encourage them to do it again and again.
Yes, just that.
Mind, we should not confuse the verb with the noun. It is possible to troll, even quite often, without actually being a troll. "Please stop trolling" is very different from "you are a troll". We should be much more careful with the latter, whereas the former is arguably identifiable reasonably objectively.
For the people who cause trouble on Wikipedia, we have many better terms. Tendentious editing is in my view a useful term, describing a real and quantifiable problem with edits to content.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Mind, we should not confuse the verb with the noun. It is possible to troll, even quite often, without actually being a troll. "Please stop trolling" is very different from "you are a troll". We should be much more careful with the latter, whereas the former is arguably identifiable reasonably objectively.
For the people who cause trouble on Wikipedia, we have many better terms. Tendentious editing is in my view a useful term, describing a real and quantifiable problem with edits to content.
Quite so, and that is an important distinction. We should not let the conversation be dominated by children whose psyches have been damaged with bedtime stories of Norwegian monsters under the bridge. Those who are fearful of this kind of troll can become apprehensive about crossing both literal and metaphorical bridges.
The troll fishery is considerably more benign. One puts out a line to see if the fish will bite, or even just to see if they take notice. It's a perfectly respectable debating technique. Of course, this doesn't make the fish very happy, but with a sound catch-and-release policy the damage is not permanent.
Ec
Matthew Brown wrote:
Whether or not 'persistent troublemaker' equates to 'troll' is dependent on one's definition of troll. By my definition, not all persistent troublemakers are trolls; the repeated blatant vandaliser, for instance, isn't a troll by my definition, yet they may be as much encouraged by recognition.
It takes 24 keystrokes to enter "persistent troublemaker" and only 5 to enter "troll". Similarly, it takes only 3 keystrokes to proclaim "NPA" (not counting the shift key); that certainly beats explaining the whole thing to someone. This is the place where elaborate templates are devised to save a few keystrokes.
Evidently a suffering language is the price of convenience.
Ec
On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:40:44 +0000, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I do seem to remember having a good, sensible conversation with Flameviper on IRC once but he was not a model user by any means.
The thing is, the post was *a blatant troll* in the classic sense; the essay at [[WP:DENY]] is actually rather tame and mentions trolls twice: once in a humorous image caption, and once as a link to an essay explaining what a troll is.
That may be true, but he is being more rational about the situation that you are. You seem to be using troll as a category to avoid discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll. Having a personality clash isn't a good reason for calling someone a troll.
Peter
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:34:38 +1000, "Peter Ansell" ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
That may be true, but he is being more rational about the situation that you are. You seem to be using troll as a category to avoid discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll. Having a personality clash isn't a good reason for calling someone a troll.
Um, Flameviper posted a long screed denouncing [[WP:DENY]] as a steaming pile of crap "because it insists on the existence of trolls" when in fact it says no such thing. As I pointed out.
So I didn't address the issue he raises because it does not exist.
Actually WP:DENY is much healthier than the long-term abuse pages ever were. Do we really believe that we do people a service by immortalising their foolishness? I suspect that many people when they look back in ten years will be rather glad we WP:DENY rather than building silly monuments to childish vandalism.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:34:38 +1000, "Peter Ansell" ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
That may be true, but he is being more rational about the situation that you are. You seem to be using troll as a category to avoid discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll. Having a personality clash isn't a good reason for calling someone a troll.
Um, Flameviper posted a long screed denouncing [[WP:DENY]] as a steaming pile of crap "because it insists on the existence of trolls" when in fact it says no such thing. As I pointed out.
So I didn't address the issue he raises because it does not exist.
Actually WP:DENY is much healthier than the long-term abuse pages ever were. Do we really believe that we do people a service by immortalising their foolishness? I suspect that many people when they look back in ten years will be rather glad we WP:DENY rather than building silly monuments to childish vandalism.
Seeing as I do agree with what the page is doing with denying vandals visibility the pages existence doesn't worry me. I am not familiar with his case, but unless he is a known vandalising troll, as opposed to just an annoying troll, it still seems to be a part of wikipedia (possibly just IRC) culture that should be discussed. However, according to his evidence he was called a troll in reference to that page. Doesn't that at least worry someone even if they do agree he is a troll?
"<Op> You were trolling. <Flameviper> Excuse me? <Op> [[WP:DENY]]"
Peter
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:50:58 +1000, "Peter Ansell" ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
<Op> You were trolling. <Flameviper> Excuse me? <Op> [[WP:DENY]]
See Steve Bennett's comment below.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/8/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll.
As I said, this way of thinking is extremely susceptible to trolling. Probably the only time AGF really should not be applied is when there is already public aknowledgement of trolling. Otherwise, a lot of time is going to be wasted as every single person enters the thread thinking "well, people call him a troll, but he hasn't done anything troll-like yet!"
Steve
Please, we have plenty of banned people on IRC - digwuren springs to mind - who behave themselves perfectly well. On the occasions I have seen Flameviper behaving himself, no one has threatened to kick him. As with most legitimate trolls, no one but Flameviper is responsible for his behaviour. Neither IRC users nor Wikipedians are going to teach anyone to grow up, we do not have punch or cookies in the back.
On 08/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/8/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll.
As I said, this way of thinking is extremely susceptible to trolling. Probably the only time AGF really should not be applied is when there is already public aknowledgement of trolling. Otherwise, a lot of time is going to be wasted as every single person enters the thread thinking "well, people call him a troll, but he hasn't done anything troll-like yet!"
Sorry... I do not wish to be an annoyance... Just saw an issue with WP:DENY and its use on IRC that I thought was interesting.
Peter
On 11/8/07, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
<Randomperson> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flameviper <-- HE'S A BANNED TROLL [INFO] Mode +o Op by ChanServ [INFO] Mode +b Flameviper*!*@* by Op [INFO] Op has kicked Flameviper from #wikipedia-en (Flooding, 4chan/ED trolling) [INFO] You are banned from this channel.
This is exactly the correct approach to dealing with trolls.
1. Most trolls, by definition, thrive on living on the very edge of acceptable behaviour. They are capable of crossing from side to side as they see fit. 2. It is very time consuming for every person to have to continually re-evaluate whether a person is a troll or not. 3. Once a person with sufficient wisdom and authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL. No more time should be wasted on them. 4. If a decreed troll ever wants to become a normal community member again, it should be hard. Very hard. A lot harder than appearing in an IRC channel and saying "hey, can't we just be friends?"
We don't dish out the term "troll" lightly. Nor do we retract it lightly.
Steve
On 07/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL.
This is preposterous.
James Farrar wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL.
This is preposterous.
Not to a person with an evangelical belief that he is endowed with that wisdom and authority.
Ec
On 08/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL.
This is preposterous.
Not to a person with an evangelical belief that he is endowed with that wisdom and authority.
And I'm well aware that we have such people amongst our admins. And I find them preposterous, of course.
James Farrar schrieb:
On 08/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL.
This is preposterous.
Not to a person with an evangelical belief that he is endowed with that wisdom and authority.
And I'm well aware that we have such people amongst our admins. And I find them preposterous, of course.
I think this a socially explainable "ruling class" phenomenon. Admins are "trained" to think that way, because they have to rely on their judgment on a daily basis to block vandals. After a while one gets used to that power and learns how to silence dissent before it gets difficult. It is preposterous none the less.
On 07/11/2007, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:<lots of trolling>
On 11/7/07, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
Basically, the word "troll" means "person who annoys me"
My definition of a "troll" is someone who takes an opposing position simply for the sake of pissing people off regardless of what his actual position on an issue is. A troll's purpose is to create drama simply for drama's sake. What Encyclopedia Dramatica does is "trolling" and they more or less say so right on their website, that is, pissing people off who take themselves too seriously such as radical feminists and such. Not because they really believe that women should stay in the kitchen but because groups with extreme positions are easy to offend.
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer. We have another term for such people and you can read all about it at [[m:dick]].
on 11/7/07 8:25 PM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer.
You mean like Martin Luther King, Jr. was?
Marc
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:27:39 -0500, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer.
You mean like Martin Luther King, Jr. was?
Close. Like Jason Gastrich, who *thinks* he's like Martin Luther King, Jr.
Guy (JzG)
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 11/7/07 8:25 PM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer.
You mean like Martin Luther King, Jr. was?wikien-l
Or Socrates?
Ec
On 11/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer.
You mean like Martin Luther King, Jr. was?
If your fighting real life oppression then sometimes taking "no" for an answer is noble and the right thing to do. If you're trying to get your way on a website then it rarely ever is and can be counterproductive to your position. "Nobody likes listening to dicks no matter how right they are".
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 11/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I think that many of the people labeled "trolls" on WP aren't "trolls" in the classic sense because they really believe in the positions that they take. They are just very obstinate about their positions and can't take "no" for an answer.
You mean like Martin Luther King, Jr. was?
If your fighting real life oppression then sometimes taking "no" for an answer is noble and the right thing to do. If you're trying to get your way on a website then it rarely ever is and can be counterproductive to your position. "Nobody likes listening to dicks no matter how right they are".
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick??? Nobody likes hearing from anyone that challenges the status quo.When it takes someone with the status of a Martin Luther King to challenge the establishment it tells me that a lot of people have previously missed the opportunity to fight oppression when it was really a much simpler problem.
I don't dispute that it can be difficult to distinguish between a person with a legitimate complaint and one who is only seeking to disrupt, but that does not absolve us from assuming good faith.
Ec
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:59:13 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick?
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
But of course I'm looking at this from my perspective of long experience with pushers of fringe science and pseudoscience. I'm sure that the people who constantly work to inflate the significance of remove viewing are sincere in their belief, but it doesn't make them any less aggravating.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:59:13 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick?
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
What's the purpose of injecting aliens into a discussion that has nothing to do with that. Making up a stupid imaginary example that has nothing to do with reality does nothing to move the discussion forward.
But of course I'm looking at this from my perspective of long experience with pushers of fringe science and pseudoscience. I'm sure that the people who constantly work to inflate the significance of remove viewing are sincere in their belief, but it doesn't make them any less aggravating.
When debunking becomes an obsession objectivity is sacrificed. I'm sure that there are significant numbers of people who give credence to the edges of science without "pushing" these topics. It's disrespectful to lump them with those who take extreme positions to promote them.
Ec
On Nov 9, 2007 1:50 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:59:13 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick?
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
What's the purpose of injecting aliens into a discussion that has nothing to do with that. Making up a stupid imaginary example that has nothing to do with reality does nothing to move the discussion forward.
[[Scientology]]?
Less imaginary than you might expect.
On 09/11/2007, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:50 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:59:13 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick?
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
What's the purpose of injecting aliens into a discussion that has nothing to do with that. Making up a stupid imaginary example that has nothing to do with reality does nothing to move the discussion forward.
[[Scientology]]? Less imaginary than you might expect.
Obsessive POV pushers in general, who don't get or don't care about NPOV.
If you act in a manner perceived by others as being jerklike, they are likely to perceive you as being jerklike.
- d.
zetawoof wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:50 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:59:13 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So standing up for what one believes is being a dick?
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
What's the purpose of injecting aliens into a discussion that has nothing to do with that. Making up a stupid imaginary example that has nothing to do with reality does nothing to move the discussion forward.
[[Scientology]]?
Less imaginary than you might expect.
But Guy's comment was about aliens, not Scientology. However, if you want to believe that in addition to the copious valid criticisms about Scientology they are also inhabited by aliens, I'm resigned to the futility of wasting a lot of time trying to convince you otherwise.
Ec
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:09:54 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy's comment was about aliens, not Scientology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:50:21 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If one believes the world was invaded by aliens in space planes, and one stands up for it by harassing anyone who disagrees, then yes.
What's the purpose of injecting aliens into a discussion that has nothing to do with that. Making up a stupid imaginary example that has nothing to do with reality does nothing to move the discussion forward.
As noted by Zetawoof, this is what the Church of Scientology claims. It was a real-world example of a bizarre belief for which people stand up in a most aggressive way.
If you have a foolproof objective way of identifying the difference between the good and the bad tenacious advocates, I'd be grateful if you'd share it.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
If you have a foolproof objective way of identifying the difference between the good and the bad tenacious advocates, I'd be grateful if you'd share it.
They're "good" if they are using it to fight "real" injustice in "real life". They're "bad" if they are using it to push a POV or get their way on a website. I'm not saying that people with alternative positions on issues shouldn't state their case. I'm saying that they should state it in a civil manner, see if it flies, and if it doesn't then go do something else.
BTW Martin Luther King had a "consensus".
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:21:28 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If you have a foolproof objective way of identifying the difference between the good and the bad tenacious advocates, I'd be grateful if you'd share it.
They're "good" if they are using it to fight "real" injustice in "real life". They're "bad" if they are using it to push a POV or get their way on a website. I'm not saying that people with alternative positions on issues shouldn't state their case. I'm saying that they should state it in a civil manner, see if it flies, and if it doesn't then go do something else.
OK, so let's take this test and try it on an article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
Here we have a case where some very sincere people are campaigning to get the medical establishment to recognise a disease. The medical establishment refuses, saying this is just symptoms of already known diseases.
Read www.morgellonswatch.com if you have the time; the top two or three posts are a very balanced statement of the medical establishment's POV here.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 "Ron Ritzman" wrote:
If you have a foolproof objective way of identifying the difference between the good and the bad tenacious advocates, I'd be grateful if you'd share it.
They're "good" if they are using it to fight "real" injustice in "real life". They're "bad" if they are using it to push a POV or get their way on a website. I'm not saying that people with alternative positions on issues shouldn't state their case. I'm saying that they should state it in a civil manner, see if it flies, and if it doesn't then go do something else.
OK, so let's take this test and try it on an article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
Here we have a case where some very sincere people are campaigning to get the medical establishment to recognise a disease. The medical establishment refuses, saying this is just symptoms of already known diseases.
Read www.morgellonswatch.com if you have the time; the top two or three posts are a very balanced statement of the medical establishment's POV here.
I neither know nor want to know anything about Morgellons. There are clearly some people who believe that it is a validly distinct syndrome, and others who don't. It is not for us to judge which of them is correct. The fact that the medical establishment is in opposition is not in itself a valid argument against this concept. It is an argument from authority. We can only say what each side believes.
In broader terms definition is the sole responsibility of the proponents. Defining a phenomenon is not a scientific or falsifiable process. I can define something completely silly, and that definition will remain valid. The definition says nothing one way or the other about whether what I have defined has any connection with the real world. That comes later.
What I find happens frequently is that opponents expand definitions to include something that was not originally implied. They proceed to disprove their expansions and believe that they have debunked the whole thing.
Balancing the true believers on either side of such issues is not an easy task, but one has to begin from a position of respect for both sides. That cannot be accomplished if one is predisposed to dismiss eccentric views.
Ec
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:34:53 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
OK, so let's take this test and try it on an article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons Here we have a case where some very sincere people are campaigning to get the medical establishment to recognise a disease. The medical establishment refuses, saying this is just symptoms of already known diseases. Read www.morgellonswatch.com if you have the time; the top two or three posts are a very balanced statement of the medical establishment's POV here.
I neither know nor want to know anything about Morgellons. There are clearly some people who believe that it is a validly distinct syndrome, and others who don't. It is not for us to judge which of them is correct. The fact that the medical establishment is in opposition is not in itself a valid argument against this concept. It is an argument from authority. We can only say what each side believes.
That rather misses the point. What we're doing here is looking at the actual article, the actual editors of the actual article, and seeing if the proposed test yields an unambiguous answer: who are the Martin Luther Kings and who are the Jason Gastriches?
In broader terms definition is the sole responsibility of the proponents. Defining a phenomenon is not a scientific or falsifiable process. I can define something completely silly, and that definition will remain valid. The definition says nothing one way or the other about whether what I have defined has any connection with the real world. That comes later.
That rather misses the point. They insist that the medical establishment's failure or refusal to accept their definition is evidence of a problem. Well, no, medicine doesn't work that way - you are expected to follow the scientific method. You don't go to a Western medical doctor to be treated for evil spirits, however sincerely you believe that you are possessed by evil spirits.
What I find happens frequently is that opponents expand definitions to include something that was not originally implied. They proceed to disprove their expansions and believe that they have debunked the whole thing.
And in this case we have the opposite: proponents have expanded the definition to the point that common symptoms of a dozen or more common complaints are all listed as diagnostic of this supposed disorder, and people are encouraged to self-diagnose, and told that their self-diagnosis is accurate *because doctors won't diagnose this disorder*; doctors won't diagnose this, therefore those who will diagnose it (i.e. you, the patient, and we, the company that will sell you a treatment) are the only ones whoa re right.
Balancing the true believers on either side of such issues is not an easy task, but one has to begin from a position of respect for both sides. That cannot be accomplished if one is predisposed to dismiss eccentric views.
I don't think it's a matter of dismissing them. It's a matter of identifying them as eccentric, that's the heart of this problem. How do we, as a community, diagnose the difference between Dr. King and "Dr." Gastrich when they tell us we are wrong? Or does it matter?
Guy (JzG)
On 09/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That rather misses the point. What we're doing here is looking at the actual article, the actual editors of the actual article, and seeing if the proposed test yields an unambiguous answer: who are the Martin Luther Kings and who are the Jason Gastriches?
Something that may be applicable here: I've noticed (over and over again) that activist calls-to-arms on mailing lists, etc., telling people to come to Wikipedia to support a point of view, always leave a number of people who become activists for *this* project and who realise the very best thing they can do is to try to write from a neutral point of view. That is, to write good encyclopedia articles on their topic of great interest, rather than to push a point of view. They often become very annoyed by their less neutral fellows' efforts to push POV in the articles - there's little more annoying than dickish behaviour by people you actually agree with.
So, advocacy and a strong point of view is not evidence of ill will or even cluelessness. We all have strong points of view, and hopefully we are aware enough of them to deal with them properly for Wikipedia; new people are often just as aware of theirs when they see Wikipedia.
That rather misses the point. They insist that the medical establishment's failure or refusal to accept their definition is evidence of a problem. Well, no, medicine doesn't work that way - you are expected to follow the scientific method. You don't go to a Western medical doctor to be treated for evil spirits, however sincerely you believe that you are possessed by evil spirits.
Yabbut, we (and they) should be able to teach the controversy (to use a horribly misappropriated useful phrase). That's what NPOV says to do.
And in this case we have the opposite: proponents have expanded the definition to the point that common symptoms of a dozen or more common complaints are all listed as diagnostic of this supposed disorder, and people are encouraged to self-diagnose, and told that their self-diagnosis is accurate *because doctors won't diagnose this disorder*; doctors won't diagnose this, therefore those who will diagnose it (i.e. you, the patient, and we, the company that will sell you a treatment) are the only ones whoa re right.
This sounds more like an editorial problem of the sort I've seen since the day I got here.
So the best way to deal with it would be to get the advocates who nevertheless understand NPOV onside.
Balancing the true believers on either side of such issues is not an easy task, but one has to begin from a position of respect for both sides. That cannot be accomplished if one is predisposed to dismiss eccentric views.
I don't think it's a matter of dismissing them. It's a matter of identifying them as eccentric, that's the heart of this problem. How do we, as a community, diagnose the difference between Dr. King and "Dr." Gastrich when they tell us we are wrong? Or does it matter?
We have Scientologists who edit Scientology articles, including CoS staff editing from CoS computers. Their edits often don't stand, but (speaking as a vociferous critic of Scientology) I consider their doing so has *markedly* improved the neutrality and quality of articles on the subject. Even if some of them (and some of the critics) are raving nutters.
- d.