[Wikipedia-l] Further replies

Sun Apr 14 16:40:39 UTC 2002

I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.  

I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations about
Cunctator, and frankly I don't care.  I just don't want to see this stuff on
the list.

Because I am very impressed with the way you formed a community behind the
objective of the NPOV encyclopedia, I am hesitant to say anything be misused
by those who seem to have something against you.  But, since this is not the
first time you've lashed out on this list...

Please, use this list for the discussion of the wikipedia project, including
of course specific problems with specific things people have actually done
on the wikipedia, but not for inuendo and personal attacks.  

Obviously it is just my personal desire not to see this list used as a
vehicle for attacking people, and you are free to do what you please.  But,
I want to state my public support for something Manning Bartlett said in
regards to your previous interactions with Cunctator on the list:

> If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or
> discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any
> individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
See : http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-December/000980.html

Another expample of the problem can be found at:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-March/001598.html

Yours
Mark Christensen

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 5:08 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [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.

> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?= <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Peace is cool.  I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
> or Larry Sanger are trolls.

Gee thanks, Chuck.  :-)  I don't think you're a troll either!  :-)

> I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
> project because it was just getting too emotional, but
> decided that would just be letting him win his little
> game.

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.

> I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> without losing too much of our resources as a result.

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!

> Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> follow the community guidelines?

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.

> Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
> punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
> it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
> trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.

It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack.
That's a very important distinction.

> From: kband at www.llamacom.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

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.

> > Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> > with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
> been attacked.

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.

> Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
> petulant child,

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.

> Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
> people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
> he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
> with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
> surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?

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.

> Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
> is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia.

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."

> If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.

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.

> Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> that he's being ganged up on.
>
> And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> Wikipedia is pretty weak.

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.

> But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.

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.

> These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.

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

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l