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.
I think the key thing in your example is that both parties resorted to ad hominem attacks almost immediately. I would say both of them were trolling. They should have discussed the content, not eachother's reasons for their edits.
As long as you stick to discussing content, not people, you should be safe from accusations of trolling. I suppose repeated frivolous complaints about content could be considered trolling, but in most cases trolls complain about people, not content.
On 6/25/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Anyone who has never been accused of trolling simply hasn't edited enough.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 6/25/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Anyone who has never been accused of trolling simply hasn't edited enough.
Absolutely. One problem is that many have not yet learned that when they see the dodgeball full of shit coming at them they need to duck. Seperating the ad rem, "You are trolling," from the ad hominem, "You are a troll," requires a level of sophistication unknown in the realms of dickdom. The most that some can expect is that some kindly literate big sister Jane is there to tell them, "Duck, Dick, duck?"
Ec
That's a very astute observation, and it happens too often in my experience. But the essential argument to refute "Bob's" troll-hood is that (per the definitions mentioned above that are the standard one, even if the word is commonly misused) Troll = intentional troublemaker. Being a troll means having taken actions that definitively show that good faith cannot be applied to you. You are out to make trouble. of course, that doesn't help to differentiate trolling from mere vandalism. But in the case of Wikipedia, I'd say they were about the same. A troll is just smarter, because he causes trouble using the same mechanisms that good edits get made by.
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 6/25/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Anyone who has never been accused of trolling simply hasn't edited
enough.
Absolutely. One problem is that many have not yet learned that when they see the dodgeball full of shit coming at them they need to duck. Seperating the ad rem, "You are trolling," from the ad hominem, "You are a troll," requires a level of sophistication unknown in the realms of dickdom. The most that some can expect is that some kindly literate big sister Jane is there to tell them, "Duck, Dick, duck?"
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Of course, "troll" often means "person who insists on bringing up something I'm doing wrong even though I keep trying to dismiss him."
On 6/25/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, "troll" often means "person who insists on bringing up something I'm doing wrong even though I keep trying to dismiss him."
It's an accurate use of the term if it's describing someone who keeps resurrecting an issue with a view to causing trouble around it.
On 6/25/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, "troll" often means "person who insists on bringing up something I'm doing wrong even though I keep trying to dismiss him."
It's an accurate use of the term if it's describing someone who keeps resurrecting an issue with a view to causing trouble around it.
Whether or not the term is being accurately used people are better off when arguments can be constructed while avoiding it.
On 6/25/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, "troll" often means "person who insists on bringing up something I'm doing wrong even though I keep trying to dismiss him."
It's an accurate use of the term if it's describing someone who keeps resurrecting an issue with a view to causing trouble around it.
That is assuming bad faith, in spades.