Ad hominem: Difference between revisions

389 bytes added ,  16 June 2004
no edit summary
(we understand it, and we dont like it)
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument.  It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.
'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument.  It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.


[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free".  [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].
Speculative attributions of motive are ad hominem (an observation of [[English Wikipedia User Bird]]) not to mention [[amateur psychiatry]] based usually on [[pop psychology]]. More seriously, and much more damaging:


[[Trolls]] also disapprove of [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].  This tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.
[[Ad hominem revert]] is common on [[large public wiki]]s.  It is so damaging that it gives rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". 
 
[[Ad hominem delete]] amplifies the reversion to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]] - a strong sign of its [[Wikimedia corruption]].
 
[[Trolls]] also disapprove of [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]] and punishing their [[thoughtcrime]].   
 
Tolerating any form of ad hominem attack (which insiders can get away with but outsiders can't) tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.
Anonymous user