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 | The '''New [[Troll]] [[point of view]]''' is that the [[neutral point of view]] isn't, and has [[systemic bias]], that can only be fixed by piling in [[legions of trolls]] of the opposite view. It is a warlike view of what knowledge is - which is appropriate, as [[knowledge is power]] and that only leads to warfare. | ||
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]], implies morality. | |||
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 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 22: | Line 11: | ||
=== Definition of trolling === | === Definition of trolling === | ||
Trolling is defined [[Troll|there]] along the lines of "...a term of abuse that is levelled both at genuinely problematic users and users with contentious but potentially legitimate views." | |||
:"A wiki is by contrast troll-hostile and ruled by a GodKing if "deliberately disrupting work... in order to foster change, etc." can be unilaterally labelled as "problematic trolling" by one person or a small group, e.g. Jim Wales" (from [[Troll|here]]) | :"A wiki is by contrast troll-hostile and ruled by a GodKing if "deliberately disrupting work... in order to foster change, etc." can be unilaterally labelled as "problematic trolling" by one person or a small group, e.g. Jim Wales" (from [[Troll|here]]) | ||
:"In general internet terms, trolling can be described as making an undefended and polarised statement, to stimulate a large and reactive response | :"In general internet terms, trolling can be described as making an undefended and polarised statement, to stimulate a large and reactive response. However, what constitutes "undefended" is usually entirely up to the observer (see spun threat for a way in which this can be made obvious to third party observers)." (from [[Trolling|here]]) | ||
However, the entire [http://consumerium.org Consumerium project] is [[Troll|seen]] as one big | However, the entire [http://consumerium.org Consumerium project] is [[Troll|seen]] as one big "troll" against powerful corporations, governments, etc: "...culture of trolling (of which Consumerium is necessarily a part, since it always will be perceived as "trolling perfect corporations with bad untrue things" until of course the corporation must admit that all the "trolling" is true..." | ||
==== Anonimity ==== | ==== Anonimity ==== | ||
Line 43: | Line 32: | ||
=== Relationship to "soft security" === | === Relationship to "soft security" === | ||
The Consumerium school shares with the "soft security" school a distaste of "hard security". Similar to the view of hardcore proponents of soft security, use of hard security is permitted when all other avenues are exhausted, but this is considered a semi-shameful failure on part of the person forced to wield it. | The Consumerium school shares with the "soft security" school a distaste of "hard security". Similar to the view of hardcore proponents of soft security, use of hard security is permitted when all other avenues are exhausted, but this is considered a semi-shameful failure on part of the person forced to wield it. [Lowest Troll|On this page] may be found a joking prescription for an apology if you have to use hard security. | ||
The Consumerium school may be said to think along the same lines as the "soft security" school of thought, but to also think that "soft security" doesn't go far enough. Soft security (at least, some variants of it) feels that hard security ("technology solutions") should be replaced with "community solutions". Soft security advocates that a "community solution" include conflict resolution when possible, but resorts to social pressure and specifically to the community "closing ranks" against an offender when the conflict cannot be resolved. By contrast, the Consumerium school [[Sysop power structure|feels that]] social pressure and "closing ranks" is also abusive and should also be avoided. | The Consumerium school may be said to think along the same lines as the "soft security" school of thought, but to also think that "soft security" doesn't go far enough. Soft security (at least, some variants of it) feels that hard security ("technology solutions") should be replaced with "community solutions". Soft security advocates that a "community solution" include conflict resolution when possible, but resorts to social pressure and specifically to the community "closing ranks" against an offender when the conflict cannot be resolved. By contrast, the Consumerium school [[Sysop power structure|feels that]] social pressure and "closing ranks" is also abusive and should also be avoided. | ||
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 | 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]] |