Repute: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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, 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''' is a poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users" go unexamined. Obviously this assumes that there can be such a thing as positive repute. See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which assume that repute is necessarily, and only, negative. | '''Ad hominem approval''' is a poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users" go unexamined. Obviously this assumes that there can be such a thing as positive repute. See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which assume that repute is necessarily, and only, negative - however these practices generate [[sysop vandalism]] and aren't [[troll-friendly]] and so also are poor practices, relying on positive reputation for the [[sysop]]. | ||