Editing Wiki spam
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Effective wikiwork" begins with the overthrow of the [[sysop power structure]] in favour of the [[New Troll point of view]] - it is only once new trolls are in charge, that [[wiki ideology]] can be destroyed and the mandate pursued. | |||
However, we must differentiate between '''wiki spam''' which is externally motivated, and genuine "[[new troll]]s", those HONESTLY ATTRACTED BY THE [[wiki mission]]. Not the old trolls that started the wiki, because they NEUROTICALLY THOUGHT THEY WERE THE BEST PEOPLE TO CONTROL the wiki mission. By definition the new trolls are sincere, while the old trolls simply seek to retain power. In this view, a '''spammer''' is an old troll from the existing ''real world''' [[power structure]] of money and interests, who ''masquerades'' as a new troll. This makes new trolls look bad, and helps justify [[sysop vandalism]]; | |||
True trolls are made by [[troll-formative injustice]] and maintained by [[anti-troll bias]]. In general they do not make bald pro-corporate comments or link to commercial web sites unless they are truly the best reference on some issue. This is rare, and the rarity of it can actually be detected and used to determine who is a [[funded troll]] from the old power structure, and who is a genuinely concerned activist from the [[New Troll point of view]]. | True trolls are made by [[troll-formative injustice]] and maintained by [[anti-troll bias]]. In general they do not make bald pro-corporate comments or link to commercial web sites unless they are truly the best reference on some issue. This is rare, and the rarity of it can actually be detected and used to determine who is a [[funded troll]] from the old power structure, and who is a genuinely concerned activist from the [[New Troll point of view]]. | ||
Line 25: | Line 13: | ||
::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ||
:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. Bomis, that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]]. | :::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. [[Bomis]], that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]]. | ||
::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ||
Line 36: | Line 24: | ||
:::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | :::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | ||