Editing Wiki spam
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: | ||
"Effective wikiwork" begins with the overthrow of the [[sysop power structure]] in favour of the [[New Troll point of view]] - it is only once new trolls are in charge, that [[wiki ideology]] can be destroyed and the mandate pursued. | |||
However, we must differentiate between '''wiki spam''' which is externally motivated, and genuine "[[new troll]]s", those HONESTLY ATTRACTED BY THE [[wiki mission]]. Not the old trolls that started the wiki, because they NEUROTICALLY THOUGHT THEY WERE THE BEST PEOPLE TO CONTROL the wiki mission. By definition the new trolls are sincere, while the old trolls simply seek to retain power. In this view, a '''spammer''' is an old troll from the existing ''real world''' [[power structure]] of money and interests, who ''masquerades'' as a new troll. This makes new trolls look bad, and helps justify [[sysop vandalism]]; | |||
True trolls are made by [[troll-formative injustice]] and maintained by [[anti-troll bias]]. In general they do not make bald pro-corporate comments or link to commercial web sites unless they are truly the best reference on some issue. This is rare, and the rarity of it can actually be detected and used to determine who is a [[funded troll]] from the old power structure, and who is a genuinely concerned activist from the [[New Troll point of view]]. | True trolls are made by [[troll-formative injustice]] and maintained by [[anti-troll bias]]. In general they do not make bald pro-corporate comments or link to commercial web sites unless they are truly the best reference on some issue. This is rare, and the rarity of it can actually be detected and used to determine who is a [[funded troll]] from the old power structure, and who is a genuinely concerned activist from the [[New Troll point of view]]. | ||
Line 25: | Line 13: | ||
::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ||
:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. Bomis, that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]]. | :::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. [[Bomis]], that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]]. | ||
::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ||
Line 31: | Line 19: | ||
:::::"Hey, you are not representative of the [[New Troll point of view]], the statistical evidence and sequence of events is such that the [[balance of probabilities]] favours the theory of you being paid to be here, not having shown up due to some natural or normal expansion of our user base to include such as yourself." Is this easy to figure out? No. But given a [[faction]] system is possible. If in a given month you get 20 new "Reds" and 10 new "Blues", you might observe that one blue defends commercial products very specifically, two reds attack them. So if in one month four of the ten Blues are strongly promoting commercial products but only two of the Reds are strongly defaming them, this is a big shift, and there are tests you can apply to determine if this skew is the result of some deliberate attempt to influence or alter the [[neutral point of view]]. | :::::"Hey, you are not representative of the [[New Troll point of view]], the statistical evidence and sequence of events is such that the [[balance of probabilities]] favours the theory of you being paid to be here, not having shown up due to some natural or normal expansion of our user base to include such as yourself." Is this easy to figure out? No. But given a [[faction]] system is possible. If in a given month you get 20 new "Reds" and 10 new "Blues", you might observe that one blue defends commercial products very specifically, two reds attack them. So if in one month four of the ten Blues are strongly promoting commercial products but only two of the Reds are strongly defaming them, this is a big shift, and there are tests you can apply to determine if this skew is the result of some deliberate attempt to influence or alter the [[neutral point of view]]. | ||
:::::But to get to that, you must acknowledge that there is a [[New Troll point of view]] and that changes in the flow of attention into the wiki | :::::But to get to that, you must acknowledge that there is a [[New Troll point of view]] and that changes in the flow of attention into the wiki must change. | ||
:::::In this model, "spam" is simply statistically infrequent linkage or approval of some commercial product, perhaps as quantified by a [[URI]]. | :::::In this model, "spam" is simply statistically infrequent linkage or approval of some commercial product, perhaps as quantified by a [[URI]]. | ||
:::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | :::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | ||