Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
Wiki witchhunt: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Genyphur
(much expanded (GFDL)) |
m (Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Genyphur) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On a [[large public wiki]], a '''wiki witchhunt''' is a [[wiki idiom]] for the attempt to discover or assert that several [[userids]] or [[IP number]]s "are the same person" - a very low integrity attempt to define [[collective | On a [[large public wiki]], a '''wiki witchhunt''' is a [[wiki idiom]] for the attempt to discover or assert that several [[userids]] or [[IP number]]s "are the same person" - a very low integrity attempt to define [[alleged and collective identity]]. ''See [[faction]] for a competent and civilized alternative.'' | ||
According to [[Wikipedia]] founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Wiki witchunts are not supposed occur. | |||
To [[require response to hearsay]] is the most common first step. However, no one aware of [[group dynamics]] will answer to this consistently. This is then taken as validation. | To [[require response to hearsay]] is the most common first step. However, no one aware of [[group dynamics]] will answer to this consistently. This is then taken as validation. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
There are many good examples, the [[vile mailing list]] being almost an historical record of same. [[Consumerium:We|We]] tend to discourage listing them, as that would only encourage [[inquisitor]]s to seek out and punish those who make [[troll-friendly offer]]s. | There are many good examples, the [[vile mailing list]] being almost an historical record of same. [[Consumerium:We|We]] tend to discourage listing them, as that would only encourage [[inquisitor]]s to seek out and punish those who make [[troll-friendly offer]]s. | ||
Like the actual witchhunt, this sad and petty (but not yet murderous) phenomena seems to be a symptom of [[dualism]] and [[groupthink]]. Many see the world in simple terms of friends and enemies, and believe that enemies of their enemies must be their friends. Sadly this requires everyone else to, as well, form [[faction]]s (or looser [[troll organization]]s), note [[enemy project]]s that they have taken over. Since that alternate [[power structure]] can then respond with [[trolling | Like the actual witchhunt, this sad and petty (but not yet murderous) phenomena seems to be a symptom of [[dualism]] and [[groupthink]]. Many see the world in simple terms of friends and enemies, and believe that enemies of their enemies must be their friends. Sadly this requires everyone else to, as well, form [[faction]]s (or looser [[troll organization]]s), note [[enemy project]]s that they have taken over. Since that alternate [[power structure]] can then respond with [[trolling tactic]]s and other methods of [[wiki regime change]], this tends to train others to employ the same tactics. A [[wiki vicious cycle]] ensures. | ||
[[Consumerium:We|We]] basically hope it never happens here, but sadly our hopes have been dashed: [[New Troll point of view|supposedly-new]] [[trolls]] whose [[trolling]] displeases known [[trolls]] find themselves associated (against their will, some claim) with the Wikipedia [[sysop power structure|power structure]] of [[inquisitor]]s and [[sysop vandal]]s. This is based admittedly on limited proof: [[amateur psychiatry]] and (more significant) the mindless repetition of known falsehoods like the already-discredited article on [[Craig Hubley]] that not even [[Wikipedia]]'s quite low standards will admit. Also, it has not so far involved [[technological escalation]], i.e. no [[IP block]]s, so dialogue can continue: the newcomers can prove themselves to actually have [[New Troll point of view]] instead of the very old [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] which they dredge up out of old article histories and try to present as being fact. | |||
[[Consumerium: | [[Consumerium:Itself]] should eventually rely on [[factionally defined]] ways to seek out and assign editorial judgement to particular types of assertions, and rely on [[faction]]s to approve or disapprove edits, so "who wrote this" is never an issue. In fact, that is pretty much the only way one can get [[identity]] out of the editorial decision. | ||
''We do not invite comment on [[Wikipedia]] policy except insofar as it degrades the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole. Such issues in general should be discussed there not here! Almost all issues we can imagine that are relevant to [[wiki management]] and [[large public wiki]]s have already been covered here, so, we don't need any more detail on that subject. Even the [[trolls]] are done ranting about it. For now!'' | ''We do not invite comment on [[Wikipedia]] policy except insofar as it degrades the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole. Such issues in general should be discussed there not here! Almost all issues we can imagine that are relevant to [[wiki management]] and [[large public wiki]]s have already been covered here, so, we don't need any more detail on that subject. Even the [[trolls]] are done ranting about it. For now!'' | ||