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