Editing New Troll point of view
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: | ||
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 even if power is seldomly exercised''' | |||
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 | |||
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]]. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Line 52: | Line 41: | ||
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. 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]]. | 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 (see, for example, the way that they treat "sysops" such as Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia). 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 68: | Line 57: | ||
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 al disruption be tolerated (since no one is in a position to say which disruption is good and which is bad). | ||
=== Positive reputation considered evil === | === Positive reputation considered evil === | ||
Line 88: | Line 71: | ||
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..." (from [[New Troll point of view|here]]) | ||
=== Token Foucault reference === | === Token Foucault reference === | ||
Line 95: | Line 78: | ||
:"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 | ||
=== Further reading === | === Further reading === | ||
Line 104: | Line 84: | ||
* [[Troll]] | * [[Troll]] | ||
* [[Trolls]] | * [[Trolls]] | ||
* [[New Troll point of view]] | |||
* [[Repute]] | * [[Repute]] | ||
* [[Driven off by trolls]] | * [[Driven off by trolls]] |