Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Page history: * (cur) (last) . . M 07:50, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168... (accusing of trolling per se is not trolling and is not a form of it either, no more than karate is a form of offense (sometime off.sometimes def.)) 

 * (cur) (last) . . M 07:21, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . M 07:20, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . 07:07, Jan 16, 2004 . . Tim Starling (rm "rules lawyering" -- besides being possibly an agenda driven listing, that case of trolling was hardly significant in Wikipedia's history)
 * (cur) (last) . . 06:57, Jan 16, 2004 . . Peak (Introduction: tighten the prose)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 06:45, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . M 06:44, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . M 06:43, Jan 16, 2004 . . Mirv (grammar)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 06:42, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . 06:41, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . M 06:38, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . 06:37, Jan 16, 2004 . . 168... (overhaul intro)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 04:44, Jan 16, 2004 . . Mirv
 * (cur) (last) . . M 04:14, Jan 16, 2004 . . Mirv
 * (cur) (last) . . M 04:14, Jan 16, 2004 . . Mirv
 * (cur) (last) . . 04:12, Jan 16, 2004 . . Mirv (Rules lawyering :) )
 * (cur) (last) . . M 11:44, Jan 15, 2004 . . AceMyth ("Insiteful" => Insightful)
 * (cur) (last) . . 17:19, Jan 12, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 19:10, Jan 11, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 15:30, Jan 11, 2004 . . 168... (add link)
 * (cur) (last) . . 05:22, Jan 11, 2004 . . Hephaestos (<vfd>)
 * (cur) (last) . . 05:16, Jan 11, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 05:14, Jan 11, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 05:13, Jan 11, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 05:11, Jan 11, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . M 00:06, Jan 11, 2004 . . Rholton (typo)
 * (cur) (last) . . 00:05, Jan 11, 2004 . . Peak (It only takes one troll to start an "edit war")
 * (cur) (last) . . 01:39, Jan 10, 2004 . . MyRedDice (inclusion dispute)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 22:42, Jan 9, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 21:13, Jan 9, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . M 19:49, Jan 9, 2004 . . Jeronim (capitalize "Internet")
 * (cur) (last) . . 19:41, Jan 9, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . M 19:39, Jan 9, 2004 . . Dorfl
 * (cur) (last) . . M 19:39, Jan 9, 2004 . . Dorfl
 * (cur) (last) . . M 19:37, Jan 9, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll
 * (cur) (last) . . 19:29, Jan 9, 2004 . . The Fellowship of the Troll

Help! It's not an article about Wikipedia, it's about Internet trolling. What if someone wrote an article about computer software that happened to be used to run Wikipedia (as well as numerous other things) - surely you wouldn't want one section of that article or group of articles put in the WP namespace, and the rest in the art namespace?The Fellowship of the Troll 21:08, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This would not be an appropriate article as it is based on primary research. Wikipedia is a secondary source, so until someone else publishes details of the internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, we can not report on this. Angela . 22:20, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)


Please Max - stop doing this - discuss and justify this before you revert other people's work.The Fellowship of the Troll 22:13, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace either. Try m:Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia instead. Angela . 22:20, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)


It belongs in the article space, because it is an article about Internet trolling, NOT WIKIPEDIA, it just happens to be that this trolling takes place on Wikipedia.The Fellowship of the Troll 22:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Why not move this Wikipedia as well? The Fellowship of the Troll 22:26, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please read What Wikipedia is not. If you want this to survive more than 5 days, I strongly suggest you move it to Meta. Angela . 22:34, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia policy because

  1. not written neutrally (see NPOV) - includes value judgments both in what it defines as trolling and its descriptions thereof
  2. not written encyclopedically - see news style
  3. includes empty sections (even stubs should always be self-encapsulated)

In its current form, it should be deleted. The original research would not be much of a concern if the facts would be unambiguous. They are not.—Eloquence

You can certainly argue that in its current form it needs to be improved, or you could list it for deletion if you want to, but none of what you wrote justifies moving it from one namespace to another, which is what is being done. The Fellowship of the Troll 22:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Craig (it is Craig, right?)

Wikipedia "trolling" is not a phenomenon - it lacks the running jokes and similar features of Slashdot, and has received considerably less comment, as a google search will confirm. Thus, this is off-topic for Wikipedia. Try Everything2. It is also irredeemably POV, as Eloquence has noted.

Craig? Not sure I know what you mean. Wikipedia trolling certainly is different to Slashdot trolling, which is why it needs a separate article. Surely having less comment of Google than Slashdot trolling is not a reason to call it off topic - please feel free to develop the theme of differences in this type of trolling - there are many ways to improve the article.The Fellowship of the Troll 05:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, the issue of to be written' sections is discussed at wikipedia:make omissions explicit. Martin 01:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed - please help fill these in, or add new ones.The Fellowship of the Troll 05:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

  • Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia - move this thing to meta where it belongs. - Hephaestos 05:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is just possible this is a new morph of a certain banned user... Salsa Shark 05:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and move to meta, or put it in the Wikipedia namespace. --MIRV (talk) 05:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Why do we need to cover this? Seems to encourage trolling and appears to be written by a problem user. Flockmeal 05:46, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, or move to meta. I would like to learn more about "trolls" and how to identify them. This is primarilly because I am worried of the potential to label a perfectly ordinary user as a troll, or worse yet, blackball a new user because it is assumed he is a "morph" or incarnation, or whatever. Besides the article seems ok to me. Jack 06:44, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, preferably where it is. I was having a hard time understanding what "Troll" and "Trolling" mean as applied to Wikipedia, until I found this article. The article has been where it is for a while. I've bookmarked it, and perhaps others have too. PLEASE leave well enough alone. Peak 10:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to meta. Useful info, but not in normal article space. Fuzheado 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and leave it where it is. It is a legitimate article about Internet Trolling, not internal Wikipedia discussion or navel gazing. People coming to Wikipedia to learn about Internet Trolling don't want to dredge through meta or other internal pages to find it, even if they know what these are. BTW, assumptions and vague accusations about 'problem' or 'banned' users are not good reasons for deletion (present your case, if you have one).The Fellowship of the Troll 19:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course, if we move it to meta, we must also move Wikipedia and all related articles. Unless, of course, this is just a knee-jerk crusade based on a mistaken identity.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • We already have a quite extensive legitimate article about Internet trolling. This is, on the contrary, exactly "internal Wikipedia discussion" and "navel gazing", and no amount of denial will change that fact. - Hephaestos 19:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This clearly belongs on meta, if anywhere. The user requested presentation of evidence that they are a problem. I will oblige. In the page Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia the user mentions "For example, one wag added the user Salsa shark to the list of species of sharks.". The user, our troll friend, is aware of this minor occurance because they are the user that added salsa shark to shark [1] as User:207.189.98.44 (and troll is clearly the same user since 207.189.etc responded on troll's talk page as troll (see User talk:The Fellowship of the Troll [2]). This page shouldn't exist for a variety of reason which I will enumerate: 1)It will encourage troll behavior by rewarding them with the attention they desire. 2)Others will document other users they dislike and label them as trolls. 3)It is clearly self-referential in the ways wikipedia tries hard to avoid. The user documenting their own "trolling" pretty much says it all about their intentions on this page, and wikipedia in general. Maximus Re x 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • mv to meta JDR
  • Your allegations that I am a troll based on the fact that I posted an article that you don't like, and used (gasp!) an un-logged in account, are entirely inapropriate, and your reasons for wanting deletion are entirely spurious, and based on your own narrow point of view. Please try to be a little more open minded, several people have said that they would find this article useful, but you still continue to request that it be deleted for bizzarre reasons. Again, your logic is inconsitant, since you have not objected to the Joy Division edits that I made, or any other changes, so it isn't to do with edits that a so-called problem user made.
"It will enourage troll behaviour" - first, I doubt it, and secondly, I have never seen one user's predictions about the moral effects of an article used as justification for deletion.
"Others will document other users they dislike" - I doubt it, but if they did, we could deal with it, since that is clearly not the purpose of the page.
"It is clearly self referential" - Yes, somewhat, but so is Wikipedia - you haven't explained why self-referential is ok when it's an article that you like, but not when its one you don't. If you don't like the examples, please feel free to find better ones, they were the first to come to mind. The Fellowship of the Troll 17:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • By all means clarify and correct the article as may be required, but PLEASE do not delete it. You may know what "trolling" means in the Wikipedia context, but how are others supposed to know? Peak 03:12, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Meta, or the Wikipedia namespace (preferably Meta). Delete any resulting redirect. Inter-namespace redirects are not appropriate. Angela . 06:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Moving to Meta, then deleting all reference to it is effectively the same as deletion, which is, of course, why you are proposing it. You know that the article does not meet the criteria for deletion and are looking for other ways to marginalise it. Please explain why Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Who, Why? should not also go.The Fellowship of the Troll 17:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Angela - Are you using the term "Inter-namespace redirect" in a narrow, technical sense (#REDIRECT) (as I believe you are) or are you saying that cross-references from Wikpedia to Meta are also disallowed (as perhaps FoftT is supposing)? Peak 18:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ed Poor - please do not troll like that - you can see there is active discussion and no concensus, moving things around like that is counter productive and inflamatory - please put it back.The Fellowship of the Troll 17:43, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • [Peak to Ed Poor] - If you have the authority both to make a decision and to execute it, then I believe you should also update the VfD page to indicate that a decision has been made. The article should also be updated to indicate that it is no longer a candidate for deletion. If you or anyone wants to nominate the moved article for deletion, then a new entry for the proposal should be started.Peak 17:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • If what concerns TFotT is the disappearance of said article, how about this: it is moved to meta, and linked to from Internet troll? I think that would be appropriate. I don't think we need this article in the main namespace anymore than we'd need Positive user behavior at Wikipedia--someone that interested in us is looking at meta anyhow. A new user, if they want to see how WP operates, will read things in the Wikipedia: namespace, or perhaps the article Wikipedia, which links, in fact, to Meta, so someone interested in finding out more about trolling at WP (or anything else at WP) could get to meta from that article. Jwrosenzweig 00:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, you could do that, but it seems a very strange thing to do - it isn't an article about Wikipedia, it's one of a series of articles about different forms of internet trolling. The problem is that this article was singles out for exclusion from the main space, whereas others which really are discussions of the type you mention (e.g. Wikipedia are not. The Fellowship of the Troll 18:43, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

why is it disputed if this should be in the wiki? JackLynch 06:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's a morph of what started as Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia. As it stands now, it looks like it pretty much duplicates the existing Internet troll article. - Hephaestos 06:59, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
See Talk:Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia. And stop signing your name in silver, it's too hard to read. -- Tim Starling 07:00, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see enough improvements made (suggestions anyone?) that the label can be removed, or maybe the best idea is to tie everything up into one neat article. Whats wrong w merging this into Internet Troll?. Has anybody seen my "Troll Test" on the village pump? (of course not, I'm just posting it now, and being rhetorical). Anyways, sorry about the signature, is this ok? JackLynch 07:30, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi - I blanked a little - why should 'Internet troll' be capitalised? Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 19:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Internet is usually capitalized. Dori | Talk 19:56, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Why would that be? It isn't really a proper noun, yet, at least?207.189.98.44 20:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes it is. Internet, World Wide Web and the Web are all identified in several style guides, including Associated Press and Wired (a leading e-com style guide) as proper nouns. Internet derived from Bob Taylor's term "internetting" of the early '70s, describing early packet networks, says Wired. Internet is always preceded by "the" unless it is used as a modifier. Like internetting, trolling is a verb. Troll is a descriptive noun but rarely is it a proper noun.User:anon sometime 1 9 04
Interesting, fair enough.The Fellowship of the Troll 20:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There's also a distinction made between "an internet" - which is any network of networks - and "the Internet" - which is one particular network of networks that is in the news from time to time. Salsa Shark 21:58, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Max - please! Please! Don't move things around like that without discussion! I'm making a series of articals about trolling in general, and although it is somewhat self referential, Wikipedia has internet trolls, as does Slashdot. The differences are instructive. I think it's a valid article, not a meta talk thing. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Articles about wikipedia go in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Maximus Re x 20:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Understood, but this is an article about internet trolling, which takes place on Wikipedia. Surely articles can discuss behaviours that happen to intersect with wikipedia.The Fellowship of the Troll 20:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /