Editing 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]].

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.  

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:

'''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.  Our [[trust model]] should have no direct relationship to this idea.

[[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 - 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, and that 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 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.