| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ''This article is about repute in [[web service]] settings. The term reputation is usually assumed to be an equivalent, but has rather broader meaning. '''Stigma''' usually means negative repute, '''honour''' means positive repute.'' | | '''Repute''' is [[value]] associated with some [[identity]]. In general there is no such thing as bad repute, if the identity can be discarded or changed, as it can in almost all [[brand management]] or [[troll]] situations. If one has a repute one wishes to discard, one simply discards the identity and starts over. In [[wiki management]] this is called the [[right to vanish]]. |
|
| |
|
| '''Repute''' is [[value]] associated with some [[identity]]. It is really an [[ethics]] concept that becomes visible as a measure of [[social capital]]. In general there is no such thing as bad repute, if the identity can be discarded or changed, as it can in almost all [[troll]] situations. If one has a repute one wishes to discard, one simply discards the identity and starts over. In [[wiki management]] this is called the [[right to vanish]], and is a key issue in both [[surveillance and governance]] of especially [[large public wiki]]s where there are very often many [[users in conflict]]. Lack of this "right" or '''social status''' can lead to [[social exclusion]] in some circumstances.
| | Some think that because negative reputation is so hard to make stick to anyone, the whole concept of reputation is negative and only enables those capable of promotion regardless of any [[value]]s. Others think that this can be managed but only when reputation itself is always negative, and no one can ever have a good reputation (i.e. reputation is expressed as zero or some negative number, a [[score]] on the [[identity]]). This kind of question is basic to [[social capital]] and [[trademark]] issues. |
|
| |
|
| Some think that because negative reputation is so hard to make stick to anyone, and because positive '''reputation''' enables so many abuses and is easily distorted or constructed by falsehood, the whole concept of reputation is negative and only enables those capable of promotion regardless of any [[value]]s. Others think that this can be managed but only when reputation itself is always negative, and no one can ever have a good reputation (i.e. reputation is expressed as zero or some negative number, a [[score]] on the [[identity]]). This kind of question is basic to [[social capital]] and [[trademark]] issues.
| | '''Ad hominem approval''' and [[permission-based model]]s are poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users" go unexamined (while those by new or untrusted users - see [[New Troll point of view]]) are often attacked without reason or for ideological reasons). Obviously this assumes that there can be such a thing as positive repute. |
|
| |
|
| Reputation is basic to '''civilization''' and may be just as disputed a concept. Interestingly, while '''to civilize''' often gets critical attention as a process, as it might imply [[imperialism]] or [[colonialism]], "civilization" itself as a concept rarely or never does, and is almost always assumed to be a good thing. Likewise the word '''reputation''' is assumed good and evokes stability in ways that '''repute''' does not, the latter being associated with verbs like '''reputed''' which imply uncertainty. These are subtle but key differences:
| | :See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which assume that repute is ''both'' positive and negative - these poor practices generate [[sysop vandalism]] and aren't [[troll-friendly]] as they assume that "[[trolls]] are bad" (always) while "[[sysop]]s are good" (always). ''Ask [[Wikimedia]] "can a sysop be a vandal?" and watch their tiny brains fry.'' |
| | |
| Online, most '''reputation''' is [[factionally defined]], that is, a [[faction]] must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low [[social capital]]. This is not something that [[Consumerium Services]] themselves can rely on very directly. Most [[trust model]]s have a more centralized model based on some degree of trust in a [[GodKing]], or perhaps measurable [[distrust]] levels. Our trust model should have no direct relationship to this idea.
| |
| | |
| Complicating this is disputes about the desirability of reputation itself. [[Troll]]s tend to believe that all reputation is bad, that having a "high" or "good" reputation just implies [[groupthink]] is in effect and that someone has taken advantage of it, and that it is more heroic to remain anonymous (but still traceable).
| |
| | |
| '''Ad hominem approval''' and [[permission-based model]]s are poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users of good '''reputation'''" go unexamined and thus might contain all kinds of errors.
| |
| | |
| :Ad hominem approval is often required to be accepted as a de facto practice in running [[large public wiki]]s. Because to keep a ''certain level'' of ''integrity'' withing the [[GFDL text corpus]] information coming in from previously unknown sources or authors must in practice be screened more carefully and systematically. This carries risks of [[systematic bias]] (process) or [[systemic bias]] (group affinity problems) but seems to be inevitable when only volunteer labour is relied on. There is never enough. It is not clear that a truly efficient pipeline to treat all contributions equally is possible. In [[political party]] circles this is also <s>a major problem.</s> often ignored as in [[politics as usual]]
| |
| | |
| Edits by new or untrusted users (see [[New Troll point of view]]) are often attacked without reason or for ideological reasons. This often leads to responses by [[troll organization]]s. Paradoxically, cooperation between the trolls, even on the [[patroll]] level, implies that there can be such a thing as positive repute. In all such systems, the new user necessarily lacks it, regardless of prior achievements anywhere else, or any credentials or skills.
| |
| | |
| :See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which arise from the same mindset as the [[permission-based model]] requiring [[login]]s and [[consistent identity]]) which assume that repute is ''both'' positive and negative. - these poor practices generate [[sysop vandalism]] and aren't [[troll-friendly]] as they assume that "[[trolls]] are bad" (always) while "[[sysop]]s are good" (always). ''Ask [[Wikimedia]] "can a sysop be a vandal?" and watch their tiny brains fry.'' | |
|
| |
|
| :Contrast [[wiki best practices]] like the [[Lowest Troll]] role, which makes the assumption that any [[conflicts between users]] necessarily lowers the '''repute''' of all involved - thus whoever is involved in all disputes by default is "Lowest", and there is no assumption of any positive repute at all. | | :Contrast [[wiki best practices]] like the [[Lowest Troll]] role, which makes the assumption that any [[conflicts between users]] necessarily lowers the '''repute''' of all involved - thus whoever is involved in all disputes by default is "Lowest", and there is no assumption of any positive repute at all. |
|
| |
| See also: [[reputation politics]]
| |
|
| |
| References:
| |
|
| |
| *biography of James Sirdis
| |
| *Great Lakes Native American practices regarding gifting and anoynimity
| |