Humptydumptyism: Difference between revisions
one is a good example of this phenomena, one is a good example of trollism itself, and the third is a politics as usual debate
No edit summary |
(one is a good example of this phenomena, one is a good example of trollism itself, and the third is a politics as usual debate) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:—''[[w:en:Through the Looking Glass|Troll the Looking Glass]], ch. VI | :—''[[w:en:Through the Looking Glass|Troll the Looking Glass]], ch. VI | ||
'''Humptydumptyism''', or '''idiosyncratic definition''', is a common and simple [[trolling tactic]], vital to the creation of a [[trollish]] vocabulary | '''Humptydumptyism''', or '''idiosyncratic definition''', is a common and simple [[trolling tactic]], vital to the creation of a [[trollish]] vocabulary. | ||
A variant on this tactic is claiming that a piece of text says something that serves the troll's agenda, when any literate person can see it does not. For example, a troll advocating conspiracy theories about [[w:en:NASA|NASA]] might claim that a proposed "laser broom" designed to protect the [[w:en:International Space Station|International Space Station]] from orbiting debris was a violation of treaties against weapons in space, even when the system was entirely ground-based. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/884256.stm] Another troll might claim "[t]he terms of the GFDL itself are quite clear that any improvement to the corpus must be made available to all", though the GFDL | The [[troll]] (or [[trollherd]]) takes a word and finds a little-used definition for it - or makes up its own definition - then insists that its definition is the ''only'' proper use of the word. For example, where others might use any of the many definitions for ''community''[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=community], the troll might insist that the word means ''only'' "those who share a risk of bodily harm", and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. The aim of this tactic is unclear to those who use language in an undisciplined way. Like much that [[trolls]] do, it has the effect of increasing discord among those who insist on the fuzzy or ambiguous meaning, and who seek to retain power for themselves: | ||
Under [[sysopism]], this would be seen as making meaningful communication difficult or impossible. Since [[sysop vandalism]] relies on an arbitrary definition of a "community" that the sysops "protect", it is important that they retain control of its borders. [[Trollism]] rejects this, but so do many ordinary [[faction]]s concerned with the impact of online information and decisions on the real world. | |||
A variant on this tactic is claiming that a piece of text says something that serves the troll's agenda, when any literate person can see it does not. For example, a troll advocating conspiracy theories about [[w:en:NASA|NASA]] might claim that a proposed "laser broom" designed to protect the [[w:en:International Space Station|International Space Station]] from orbiting debris was a violation of treaties against weapons in space, even when the system was entirely ground-based. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/884256.stm] | |||
Another troll might claim "[t]he terms of the GFDL itself are quite clear that any improvement to the [[GFDL corpus]] must be made available to all", though the GFDL only implies that those improvements that are made visible to a small group, be visible to everyone. In fact it's ambiguous, and a major problem with the GFDL as an [[open content]] license, that the exact obligations of an [[online service]] hosting an effort to improve the [[GFDL corpus]] has very unclear obligations in some respects. In these circumstances it is mere [[politics as usual]] to claim that one of several interpretations apply, though the more rigid requirement to share all improvements is well in line with the implications of the [[GPL]] and [[free software]] movements in which this requirement is clear. | |||