Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
New Troll point of view: Difference between revisions
m
see also
(fix first section) |
m (see also) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''New [[Troll]] [[point of view]]''' is that the [[neutral point of view]] isn't '''neutral''', and has [[systemic bias]] that favors big factions and often opresses minorities, that can only be fixed by piling in [[legions of trolls]] of an [[dueling POV|competing view]] that claim to represent the '''true neutral point of view''', which is then naturally contested by those claiming to have the real [[NPOV]] due to '''might makes right''' mentality. It is a warlike view of what knowledge is - which is appropriate, as [[knowledge is power]] and that tempts to go to war for the spoils of ruling. | The '''New [[Troll]] [[point of view]]''' is that the [[neutral point of view]] isn't '''neutral''', and has [[systemic bias]] that favors big factions and often opresses minorities, that can only be fixed by piling in [[legions of trolls]] of an [[dueling POV|competing view]] that claim to represent the '''true neutral point of view''', which is then naturally contested by those claiming to have the real [[NPOV]] due to '''might makes right''' mentality. It is a warlike view of what knowledge is - which is appropriate, as [[knowledge is power]] and that tempts to go to war for the spoils of ruling. | ||
Accordingly new [[trolls]] always assume that [[repute]] is either zero, or negative, and enter [[large public wiki]]s with the intent of working quietly until they are harassed and excluded by those who believe in positive repute, typically those in the [[sysop power structure]], or who believe that control or manipulation of technology, typically by [[developers]] is a necessary evil as no '''power structure''' is perfect but to avoid '''anarchy''' where there are [[potato]]s only for the thieves ( ie. vandals) '''a power structure is required to exist | NTPOV assumes that existing rules and guidelines are wrong, because *someone* must assume that - else they never evolve. | ||
Accordingly new [[trolls]] always assume that [[repute]] is either zero, or negative, and enter [[large public wiki]]s with the intent of working quietly until they are harassed and excluded by those who believe in positive repute, typically those in the [[sysop power structure]], or who believe that control or manipulation of technology, typically by [[developers]] is a necessary evil as no '''power structure''' is perfect but to avoid '''anarchy''' where there are [[potato]]s only for the thieves ( ie. vandals) '''a power structure is required to exist though optimally power-system is seldomly exercised in governance''' | |||
The [[Lowest Troll]] is whatever troll consistently favours the '''New Troll''' over the most trusted longstanding user. Empowering this troll is the only way to prevent an [[insider culture]] from eventually skewing and biasing a [[large public wiki]], as there is thus no advantage whatsoever to those who suck up to power. This is the most [[troll-friendly]] of the [[wiki best practices]]. | The [[Lowest Troll]] is whatever troll consistently favours the '''New Troll''' over the most trusted longstanding user. Empowering this troll is the only way to prevent an [[insider culture]] from eventually skewing and biasing a [[large public wiki]], as there is thus no advantage whatsoever to those who suck up to power. This is the most [[troll-friendly]] of the [[wiki best practices]]. | ||
Typical classifications of the New Troll point of view include at least: | |||
*"[[idiosyncratic]]" - the infamous [[google test]], which among other things excludes any discussion of [[theory of conduct]] | |||
*"[[unverifiable]]" - rarely or never raised with respect to authority's views | |||
*"[[unattributed]]" - extremely selectively applied, if a view is that stated without attribution by the [[mass media]], it will typically not be challenged. | |||
*"[[crazy]]" or more [[psychiatry]] derived language | |||
*"[[political]]" (what isn't) | |||
*"[[POV]]" - yes, so what? [[Community point of view]] is still a POV, and that's what [[neutral point of view]] amounts to when one is done "enforcing" - what is not challenged by these particular users is "neutral" by definition...!??! | |||
*... | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 41: | Line 52: | ||
The Consumerium philosophy attempts to limit the power of these sorts of subjective value judgements. The only thing that is "real" is power. The Consumerium school assumes that the world will always be mostly divided into various factions, who are willing to do sneaky things (for example, to violate FairProcess to kick out someone they consider "obviously harmful") to win. | The Consumerium philosophy attempts to limit the power of these sorts of subjective value judgements. The only thing that is "real" is power. The Consumerium school assumes that the world will always be mostly divided into various factions, who are willing to do sneaky things (for example, to violate FairProcess to kick out someone they consider "obviously harmful") to win. | ||
The Consumerium prescription is not, however, to "assume good faith" all the time, no matter what. They don't think that ''individuals'' should always be nice to others whom they consider offenders | The Consumerium prescription is not, however, to "assume good faith" all the time, no matter what. They don't think that ''individuals'' should always be nice to others whom they consider offenders. Rather, the prescription is that checks in the underlying ''social system'' prevent the community from considering any individual as "offender" in an objective sense. This is to serve as a check against [[groupthink]]. | ||
For a specific proposal as to these sorts of checks, see [[Sysop power structure]] | For a specific proposal as to these sorts of checks, see [[Sysop power structure]] | ||
| Line 57: | Line 68: | ||
Another difference between the two philosophies is their attitude towards disruption. Consider an individual who 'deliberately disrupts work... in order to foster change, etc.' | Another difference between the two philosophies is their attitude towards disruption. Consider an individual who 'deliberately disrupts work... in order to foster change, etc.' | ||
Soft security would say that the individual is working against the interests of the community, and that the community should protect itself. The Consumerium school says that disruption is sometimes necessary, and therefore almost | Soft security would say that the individual is working against the interests of the community, and that the community should protect itself. The Consumerium school says that disruption is sometimes necessary, and therefore almost all disruption be tolerated (since no one is in a position to say which disruption is good and which is bad). | ||
:This section does not take into account the realities of responding to people breaking [[rules]] and [[guidelines]] that are here to advance cooperation between contributors by stating framework of how to advance things. Sometimes use of sysop power is required however unfortunate that may be from the New Troll point of view. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:05, 14 Jul 2004 (EEST) | |||
::These aren't "realities" these are assumptions about reality made by the existing [[sysop power structure]]. A '''NTPOV''' does not take this into account since a [[new troll]] does not know, and cannot be expected to know, these so-called "[[rules]]" and even if they do, they are not necessarily going to agree with them, some of them may be leftovers from a prior level of [[large public wiki]] evolution, etc.. So there is obviously a [[community point of view]] and a [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] (doing damage to the wiki in front of trolls in the hope that they will be disgusted at sysop morality and give up on helping the project at all) but these are, obviously, NOT the same as the '''New Troll point of view''' being described here. | |||
::Like anything else, the "framework of how to advance things" is debatable, and the [[new troll]] might know more about it than any old troll or sysop who happens to have gotten to the wiki first and made friends. One must be open to new ideas about how to advance things, or criticisms from groups of people who are [[systemic bias|systematically excluded]]. The first time a tribesman from Borneo comments, he is a [[new troll]]. His comment might be "hey you people are really screwing up my forest by letting people get away with calling THIS [[sustainable forestry]]" while telling us the details. Of course all those who make comfortable livings in rich countries pushing paper and certifying lumber will call this person with actual first hand experience a "[[troll]]" and nitpick their English and try to argue that funds being spent to run a wide open wiki should instead be spent on their own personal expense account. All this is [[politics as usual]] or just [[bureaucracy]]. But there must be someone speaking up for that new troll from Borneo, and advancing his POV here. | |||
=== Positive reputation considered evil === | === Positive reputation considered evil === | ||
| Line 71: | Line 88: | ||
By contrast, the [[Lowest Troll]] is the Consumerium model for good leadership. The [[Lowest Troll]] actively fights [[groupthink]] by favoring outsiders instead of reputable community members: | By contrast, the [[Lowest Troll]] is the Consumerium model for good leadership. The [[Lowest Troll]] actively fights [[groupthink]] by favoring outsiders instead of reputable community members: | ||
:"The Lowest Troll is whatever troll consistently favours the New Troll over the most trusted longstanding user. Empowering this troll is the only way to prevent an insider culture from eventually destroying a large public wiki, as..." | :"The Lowest Troll is whatever troll consistently favours the New Troll over the most trusted longstanding user. Empowering this troll is the only way to prevent an insider culture from eventually destroying a large public wiki, as..." | ||
=== Token Foucault reference === | === Token Foucault reference === | ||
| Line 78: | Line 95: | ||
:"The author does not precede the works; he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, chooses and impedes the free circulation of fiction." - Michel Foucault | :"The author does not precede the works; he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, chooses and impedes the free circulation of fiction." - Michel Foucault | ||
'''See also:''' | |||
*[[POVs]] - for a complete listing of different POV schemes proposed or in use elsewhere | |||
=== Further reading === | === Further reading === | ||
| Line 84: | Line 104: | ||
* [[Troll]] | * [[Troll]] | ||
* [[Trolls]] | * [[Trolls]] | ||
* [[Repute]] | * [[Repute]] | ||
* [[Driven off by trolls]] | * [[Driven off by trolls]] | ||