Wikipedia Sucks!

Very fast response to this, case in point.

I wrote a substantial post here on this topic, what I've been finding lately is amazing. I'm being trolled constantly, every day, intensely, by more than one troll -- and it's definitely trolling, not ordinary critique.

I've found a way to handle what might be called the Kumioko problem. Kumioko is compelled to respond to attack, and demonstrates how this alienates communities that he might want to participate in.

Simply ignoring personal attack is not effective as to handling personal reactivity -- and we all have at least some of that, particularly with sustained trolling. I've found a way that truly works, that increases my sense of power every day, and that also happens to be far more efficient than my prior responses.

The post vanished when I tried to save it, requiring that I log in. Some software will keep the draft post. Not this phpBigBust, apparently. My general stand is that Reality is better than I can imagine. So I take that "loss" as perfect. And if anyone is interested in this topic, ask or comment!

To work, this requires discipline and patience. No argumentative response, and only very minimal response, essentially tagging the trolling, not arguing fact or presenting clever snark or other responses demonstrating attachment.

And, yes, "afraid to respond" will be alleged.

Questions will be asked where any answer will further the troll agenda, of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety.

And then watch what happens if one does not respond, as suggested long ago in [[meatball:DefendEachOther]]. Any factual answers will be twisted, and this will go on forever, until the troll is sidelined or banned or you are, whatever happens (sometimes both, and to a troll, that is victory, mission accomplished. Ottava Rima did that.)

The ultimate disposition is often out of my hands, but as a moderator, RBI is in order. (Not here, by the way -- I'm mod or admin elsewhere.)

My audience is not the troll, nor those allied with trolls. It's the full community, on the one hand, and reality itself, on the other.

On Wikipedia, addressing the community was called "grandstanding." Wikipedia is a community that empowered and enabled trolling as a way of life. Troll your enemies into getting themselves banned. That behavior persisted because it worked, trolls became skilled at manipulating their targets and the casually observing community, which operates, too often, based on quick impressions, which might as well be a translation of "wiki." Trolling also works on Wikipediocracy.

My theory is that communities that allow trolling (on a "free speech" argument) seriously damage participation. Most sane people walk away from trolling, so . . . what's left when they do?

Yes, there is a problem, how to distinguish between discussion and disagreement and trolling. But, in fact, with skill and patience and sane process, it's not difficult at all, and marginal cases would suggest patience and caution, and sometimes skilled facilitation.

I actually did this on Wikipedia, but it received very little notice. It worked. People who were fighting with each other ended up collaborating. And, of course, I was dinged for blah blah.

People will respond to trolling, for, absent training, it is human nature (especially male nature with current culture), and punishing response feeds into troll motivations. Rather, the tack that we have taken on Sucks is to regulate response -- and confront the attacks themselves. Properly done, this will increase legitimate communication, and trolls -- who are not intending any communication other than hatred, attack, and/or revenge -- will either stop, go away, or be banned with high consensus.

Yet that takes a community that pays attention. It takes administration that understands the issue. We have the basic elements here, but very weak community.

What I've been seeing lately is a very clear demonstration, if anyone is interested, but is anyone interested? I have actual data.

Abd wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:20 pm

My theory is that communities that allow trolling (on a "free speech" argument) seriously damage participation. Most sane people walk away from trolling, so . . . what's left when they do?

Yes, there is a problem, how to distinguish between discussion and disagreement and trolling. But, in fact, with skill and patience and sane process, it's not difficult at all, and marginal cases would suggest patience and caution, and sometimes skilled facilitation.

I actually did this on Wikipedia, but it received very little notice. It worked. People who were fighting with each other ended up collaborating. And, of course, I was dinged for blah blah.

People will respond to trolling, for, absent training, it is human nature (especially male nature with current culture), and punishing response feeds into troll motivations. Rather, the tack that we have taken on Sucks is to regulate response -- and confront the attacks themselves. Properly done, this will increase legitimate communication, and trolls -- who are not intending any communication other than hatred, attack, and/or revenge -- will either stop, go away, or be banned with high consensus.

Yet that takes a community that pays attention. It takes administration that understands the issue. We have the basic elements here, but very weak community.

What I've been seeing lately is a very clear demonstration, if anyone is interested, but is anyone interested? I have actual data.

I think the expression "community" implies more than one individual. We can concur on the adjective "weak," however.

tim

Abd wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:20 pm

Most sane people walk away from trolling, so . . . what's left when they do?

You tell me.

Carrite wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:03 pm

I think the expression "community" implies more than one individual. We can concur on the adjective "weak," however.
tim

Indeed, it does. There are measures, but trolls don't need measures, they just assert whatever they believe will have the impact they want. Communities always start as small. Some level of trolling attracts those who watch it as a blood sport, which, of course, encourages it.

However, it kills real community. Trolling can be blatant, clearly intended for suppressive effect, or it can be what might be called "negligent," where a contemptuous attitude is conveyed as if "the truth." This will be common among the socially disabled.

I write for various audiences, this is far from the largest. On Quora, I have over five million page views and over two thousand followers, and participation on Quora is a joy. Sometimes I write only for myself, I write to learn (which has often been ridiculed, but that is exactly what academics do in their own study).

But what is the audience here? These posts are obviously being read, there is response and reaction elsewhere. What is largely missing is participation. And once a reader realizes that if they participate, they can become a new target for the trolls, what effect does that have?

And I am not complaining about non-participation. Exposing oneself to attacks by dedicated trolls is not for people who have something to hide, because they will find it and use it, and I do not condemn those inclined to hide. It has just never been my way.

Carrite, what is behind the trolling about you being an "apologist for child rapists?" Or about you being a boozer? Or, for that matter, about your reluctance to post anything here because this site tolerated CrowsNest for a time, until he flamed out (which would now happen much more rapidly, I predict.)

Is that the "epic butthurt" that is claimed? Does your dislike of something being called "butthurt" inspire you to more participation?

And wouldn't this be making my point, the harm caused by allowing trolling?

(Seriously, Carrite, that you are trolled routinely by the Vaginant, increases your reputation with me; you are welcome to discuss any of this here -- or for that matter, on Reddit, where I assume you have noticed you were impersonated by trolls.)

There have been 50 page views since this thread was begun, in a few hours. That could be called a community, but, because of low participation, we agree, a weak one. But communities can and do waked up, in time, if conditions are created for that. Wanna be a part of that? You have high experience and it would be valued here.

Or if this is simply an opportunity to troll as you have been trolled, to pass it on, never mind. Good luck with your life either way.

boredbird wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:17 pm

Abd wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:20 pm

Most sane people walk away from trolling, so . . . what's left when they do?

You tell me.

Sure. There is a present example in your posts here, boredbird. Without any value being contributed here, your comments appear to have damaged participation by a very highly knowledgeable and cogent critic of Wikipedia. Repeat that over time, and allowed trolling suppresses participation, and especially by women.

This is not a threat, it is an answer to your question.

When sane people walk away, what is left is trolls and a subset of humanity that is inured to trolling, so common is it in some contexts. That subset is not enough for the diversity necessary for healthy community.

A healthy wiki-critical community could have reformed Wikipedia long ago. But the community has suffered from the same diseases and dysfunctions as Wikipedia, which disempowered both of them.

So, what is your purpose here, boredbird? Is there something you need to pursue it?

Carrite wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:03 pm

Abd wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:20 pm

What I've been seeing lately is a very clear demonstration, if anyone is interested, but is anyone interested? I have actual data.

I think the expression "community" implies more than one individual. We can concur on the adjective "weak," however.
tim

Well, Tim, you have a choice to make. As with all these comments, there is reaction from the Vagilante. You are being presented with a choice. It's visible, and our choices create the future. Choose well.

On the topic here, I'm fascinated by all the tricks that trolls pull out in what becomes a desperate attempt to generate defensive response or, even better, active outrage. They know that these will make their target look bad. I first recognized this, actually, back in the 1980s on the W.E.L.L, where I was a moderator.

But I never really understood deeply how to fully address this until this recent activity.

DNFTT. Period. Do not argue with trolls that are attacking or sealioning you.

From [[meatball:DefendEachOther]], that is the job of the rest of the community. However, DNFTT is often understood as meaning "ignore it."

Psychologically, that bucks our nature, our instinctive reactions. What is working for me, spectacularly, is documenting it. Originally, I responded to every EVilgent attack on Reddit with a comment section on a blog page addressing the specific points. After over 70 of these, I realized that I was spending far more time on this than he was, so I needed to make my response more efficient.

And I did. It became a generic comment offering to answer any questions from ordinary users. Nobody has asked those.

So . . . nobody was accepting his claims and cared enough to find out the truth, so I did not need to waste time writing what wasn't going to be read. Or they read the generic comment and are satisfied. (Really, anyone on Reddit who looks at his profile can tell what is happening, and many have.)

So EVilgent claimed that my blog, where the Reply is hosted, is a "honey pot," dangerous to access. A lie, but instead of arguing with him -- remember, don't argue with trolls -- I wrote a new comment on that point alone, and created an archive of it on archive.is, and linked to that.

By all measures I have so far -- which isn't much, but a little -- I am "winning." A few people have been confronting him, it's not just me. This, of course, infuriates him. If you read his recent comments, he is convicting himself, demonstrating the reality of his obsessions, over and over.

And all I need to do is act naturally. Write what I'm going to write, anywhere on Reddit -- or here -- and he attacks it, creating more and more visibility, and he's trapped by his own habits. He can't let go, because that would be admitting defeat. So he keeps escalating, obsessed.

And if I'm wrong, so effing what? I have never cared that much about what others think about me, and I'm much more concerned about what makes people happy. Hint: hatred never does it. Trusting reality -- and letting the community and reality defend against accusations is an aspect of that -- does make people happy, it always has.

Every day I'm tempted to point out some really stupid claim of his or make this or that snarky remark. I almost always let go of that. The world doesn't need more snarky remarks. But there is a war going on here, and so I allow some level of counter-trolling, quite limited, almost entirely here, where it's in line with site traditions -- if not going beyond limits. Claiming that I'm winning is trolling him. Consider, however, the context!

Abd wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:08 am

What is working for me, spectacularly, is documenting it.

Isn't it already documented on reddit and on wikipediocracy, with copies on your blog? Why does it all need to be re-redocumented here with all this philosophical commentary?