Talk:Troll (slang)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Troll sites section removed?

An entire section was just deleted on "Troll sites". Please see this rev: Current revision as of 12:12, 8 October 2009.

I strongly disagree that the section should be deleted. While I don't have all WP P&P "down," I'm convinced that WP is an educational resource, a valuable one. In terms of "notability" for this article, the first most notable thing is that trolls exist, and ought to be defined. The second is that they are prevalent, or significant, on various parts of Internet. The third is that they (may) organize. Organizations that promote trolling are so notable, that if they do not deserve a section in this article then nothing else that exists on Internet is notable enough for an article or section. If that is true, then WP as an educational resource is a sham, and I propose deleting all articles from WP as non-notable and leaving one stating that this web site is a stub.

My point is that troll organizations are that notable.

Further, the selection was properly referenced, using the NYT, of all places, as a source. Maybe the person who deleted the properly cited source needs some education on reliable sources, perhaps?

If you agree that troll sites are educationally noteworthy, and worthy of inclusion, please revert the edit using the link above.

(Whew, made it all the way through without using the word "censorship.") --Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Concern troll

Hmm, sounds like we've found a new epithet to apply to all conservatives, just as "racist" is growing stale. Congratulations.

Granted, not everyone who uses the term will have such a broad definition... And I'm sure it's possible to use conservative values to troll. But can we please mark out a line for how to tell which conservatives are trolling? Or if this would require sources which don't exist, let's delete the section. (I think I might have just fit the broad definition...)

If we don't need sources, I would suggest considering how a liberal might troll and apply the same standards to both. (I don't know wiki-practice for this section well, so I'll let you consider the issue of sources.) --Jesdisciple (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "conservative" about false-flag deception nor does the article make any such point. Wiki-practice for this article and others is that examples should come from published [[WP:RS|"reliable sources"] describing notable incidents of such behavior and/or usage of the term. betsythedevine (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

/i/nvasion" redirects here

/i/nvasion" redirects to this article, but is not mentioned anywhere in the text. I can't find a definition of it, but the term/link is in the imageboard article here. A definition needs to be added. I will try and track one down on the chan imageboard sites, but they are not generally helpful in that way. As an alternative, the link needs removing. Centrepull (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a re-direct in that article. The code I see is [[Troll (Internet)|/i/nvasion]], which is, I believe, a direct link. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[Troll (Internet)#Etymology: Trolling and Trawling

I am moving this discussion here from my talk page where it began in response to an edit I made [1]. betsythedevine (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• //

According to wikt:troll, to troll is:

1. (fishing) To entice fish with bait; to fish using a line and bait or lures trailed behind a boat.
2. (intransitive) By extension, to search (for), to draw out, to entice

According to wikt:trawl, to trawl is:

1. To take fish, or other marine animals, with a trawl.
2. To fish from a slow moving boat.
3. To make an exhaustive search for something within a defined area.

and a trawl is:

1. A long fishing line having many short lines bearing hooks attached to it; a setline.

Now even though troll and trawl may not always be synonymous but the fishing technique explained in:

trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging bait through water

could certainly be described as trawling. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I find the debate fascinating, and very appropriate for the article's Talk page, both so other editors may weigh in, and so future editors will understand what was decided. Prior to writing this, I skimmed through the article's Talk page archive on etymology of the term, and could not find this issue raised; the issues previously raised seem to be a bizarre politicizing of etymology; I found that "notably strange". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is interesting and relevant to the article, so I will continue this discussion on the article talk page. As I see it, "trawling", whether or not it is a synonym for "trolling," (and I don't think it is [2] [3]) need not be added to an article section about the etymology of "Internet troll." betsythedevine (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• //

Please do not be offended but it seems your first link, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trawl , a definition for "trawl", specifically uses "troll" as the definition for the third meaning of both the transitive and the intransitive forms of the verb. The only reason I was trying to insert the word was that in some regions of English usage, "trawl" is used in place of "troll" for that meaning. I have come across this circumstance in both AU-WA and US-DC and surrounds. As such I believe the fishing sense of "troll" is likely to feel foreign or strange to quite a few English speakers. I thought this addition would help to clarify the meaning or at least reinforce it.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S., Sorry if I've come off a bit brusque, BTW. + I really appreciate the way you are handling this. I wanted to do the same thing but I felt I might be a bit out of bounds moving the convo from someone else's page (yours) without permission^_^.Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who might not be familiar with the fishing term "trolling," the article already gives its definition. Note also that http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/troll does NOT include "trawl" as a possible definition for "troll" -- probably because the primary meaning of "trawl" involves fishing with a dragged net, something that "troll" does NOT mean. I think that it mainly confuses matters to add the word "trawling" as if it were a synonym of trolling as in "a technique known as trolling or trawling." I see that another editor besides me previously reverted this addition, for the same reason. betsythedevine (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; User:Invertzoo agrees so it seems I am out-gunned. Since Troll (angling) brings up the trawling case anyway, it is time for me to shake hands, thank you for you consideration and effort, and get you a bubble tea. BTW, I think it is funny that it was the use of the net that affected this use of The Net. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bubble tea, and thanks for working to make Wikipedia better. :-) betsythedevine (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of "false flag" from the description of "Concern troll"

The term "false flag" is not in practice restricted to behavior by governments or other large organizations. The term "false flag" is in practice widely used for misrepresenting the source or motivation of many different kinds of activity, including activity by individuals.

• "UNDER THE false flag of economic stimulus, the House is being asked today by its Republican leadership to approve another large tax cut mainly for the non-needy" Washington Post 2001
• "The memo also allowed the "false flag" technique of "convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him. " BBC 2005
• "It’s going to be interesting to see how long it is before drivers start sending out ‘false flag’ reports of available spots in order to divert attention from real parking spots." Commenter on NYT blogpost

Including the term, and a link to the Wikipedia article, is a useful and informative addition to this article's discussion of "concern troll" behavior. betsythedevine (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll as trolling

This is partially true. I took note of the terminology on the UseNet early on, and specifically noticed that it was spelled "trawl" not "troll." Trawling is a term nearly only used in commercial fishing and differs from trolling in that trawling uses nets whereas trolling uses hooks. The pronunciation is the same, but the spelling and meaning different, especially in the Internet sense. I first saw it applied to police "trawling" the UseNet for sexual miscreants, usually in grey-area sexual groups. The use of the trawl here is appropriate as police use dragnets, though the concept of a "baited hook" could be applied to a police sting--but it wasn't AFAIK.

The use of the word troll, as I recall, was coincident with a purely-biased phenomenon in Southern California where wealthy White racist youth attacked the homeless: troll-bashing. They called themselves "troll-busters." That, I believe, is the correct derivation for the term; it migrated to the Internet as term for abuse. The term has criminal roots, and is currently used in that way, despite this article. As I mention above, I will undoubtedly be referred to as a "troll" for this edit, and my material, which is accurate, will be censored! And true to textbook bias, I predict that a variety of rationalizations will be applied.--John Bessa (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll as trolling

This is partially true. I took note of the terminology on the UseNet early on, and specifically noticed that it was spelled "trawl" not "troll." Trawling is a term nearly only used in commercial fishing and differs from trolling in that trawling uses nets whereas trolling uses hooks. The pronunciation is the same, but the spelling and meaning different, especially in the Internet sense. I first saw it applied to police "trawling" the UseNet for sexual miscreants, usually in grey-area sexual groups. The use of the trawl here is appropriate as police use dragnets, though the concept of a "baited hook" could be applied to a police sting--but it wasn't AFAIK.

The use of the word troll, as I recall, was coincident with a purely-biased phenomenon in Southern California where wealthy White racist youth attacked the homeless: troll-bashing. They called themselves "troll-busters." That, I believe, is the correct derivation for the term; it migrated to the Internet as term for abuse. The term has criminal roots, and is currently used in that way, despite this article. As I mention above, I will undoubtedly be referred to as a "troll" for this edit, and my material, which is accurate, will be censored! And true to textbook bias, I predict that a variety of rationalizations will be applied. (restored) --John Bessa (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"The pronunciation is the same". I disagree. 'Troll' rhymes with roll and bowl, whereas 'trawl' rhymes with fall and haul. Angleshades (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are things unknown if they are on the Internet?

I find the following confusing.

From section "Etymology":

 "... first appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s,[3] but the earliest known example is from 1991. ..."

Isn't it known before 1991 if it appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s?

--Mortense (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Troll" as a biased term

Bias is exceedingly simple to understand. A most common form of bias is to single out persons or groups for abuse: Nazism. A key to organizing bias is described in Aaron Beck's Prisoners of Hate; he states, without doubt, that a hate group will have a force that surrounds it to prevent anything resembling the truth from influencing decisions from the central force, what can be thought of as a cult leader.

I believe that the term "troll" is used primarily as a way to single out anyone offering a different opinion than is widely accepted by the discussion group. While most members of, say, an average discussion group are open to differing opinions (being tolerant) my experience has been that groups tend to be controlled by, well, controlling types, who are not open to differing opinions (and are hence intolerant). I have a vast amount of collected text to support this, but because of the predatory nature of controlling types, I am pausing before releasing it. Also I want to release it in the context of mental illness, and not social networking.

There is absolutely no question that I will be called a troll here on this page for expressing my knowledge that the the primary use of the word troll is as biased abuse for the purpose of preventing differing opinions from being expressed, and hence halting the democratic process that is knowledge construction.

As the "Wabbit" said, "Ironic, ain't it?"--John Bessa (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the page history you will see that a bot regularly removes threads after they have been inactive for 14 days -- such as your material, posted here on December 21. The term "troll" has pejorative connotations and like any other term that can be used to insult or offend someone else, it will be misapplied. The purpose of the discussion page is to improve the article, for example by calling attention to material from published reliable sources that should be included. The article section "Usage", which reflects many of the same concerns you express here and below, would greatly benefit from the addition of some such citations. betsythedevine (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on this. I post on a variety of message forums and calling somebody a "troll" for having a different opinion than theirs is all too common. I've been banned off of a couple forums myself for "trolling" when the actual case was that I had a different opinion than someone else, one of whom was a moderator (moderator abuse). 205.242.88.119 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"link spam"

Dear all! This is for discussion about reverting my entry here. I would like to ask about the reason and justification of this step. Maybe its just me, who believes that there are other forms of communication than printed media... Before reverting please watch this and at least the first 3-5 minutes of this and then return here for further discussion.
My reasons for inclusion of the above link: Explains and sums up the information on this page in a very nice way worth to mention it as a link. --Gbaor (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a rather silly video and adds nothing to the article in question. That said, if you feel strongly that it adds value to the article, revert my edit. I'll leave it be. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gbaor, why are you so interested in glorifying trolls? Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it has been said before that there is a bias against trolls. Apparetly you have this bias as well, Kaldari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.208.70 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to "'Troll' as a biased term"

In the late 1800's a form of journalism called "yellow journalism" evolved from the conventional press at that time; it is defined as a "downplay of legitimate news in favor of eye-catching headlines that sell more newspapers" (On the Wikipedia.org article of "Yellow Journalism" a citation is not present, but I've found http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring04/vance/yellowjournalism.html for individual reference).

The quote above is considered bias due to its ease of ability to be argued from the perspective of the newspaper owners. It is a Wikipedia.org page because it is a part of history, as is the use of "troll" for someone who arguably over-sensationalizes information.

I understand where your coming from, but in popular opinion this article would still be appropriate encyclopedic material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.91.112 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

weblink keeps getting deleted

Hi Guys,

I have tried to add TheTrollPit.com to the links but someone keeps removing it. I feel that the website is highly relevant to the topic.

Those wishing to research troll behaviour and witness trolls conversing amongst themselfs would find this a very usefull resource. It's very rare to find a site where trolls openly talk about their trolling in public.

Please can somebody advise me how to stop people removing this link, do I need to ask the owner of the trollpit.com's permission first? If you are going to remove the link at least tell me why, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallylee2 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sally, the external links guidelines specifically lists "chat or discussion forums/groups" under "Links normally to be avoided", which is why I removed it (and presumably why Bonadea did so before me as well.) -- AJR | Talk 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Three other editors (McGeddon, Mindmatrix and Difu Wu) have also removed it, so there seems to be a fairly strong consensus that it is not appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the word "shibboleth"

Would it be possible to change the word "shibboleth" to something else? It seems like a relatively uncommon word, and should be replaced with a more common word. Tehori (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's a correct usage of the word. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Request Deletion of TrollFace Section

I don't see the point of including this information here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyintheMachine (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a large part of the trolling phenomenon? Particularly on the boards where the practise runs rampant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.110.107 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's original research. Mindmatrix 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How does cataloging an internet phenomenon count as original research? Would you be amenable to the section if I could provide some citations?--Shulerg (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote the policy Mindmatrix links to above, 'The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.' "Reliable source" is another Wikipedia term of art that has a specific meaning here, related to notability of the subject matter as well as the accuracy of statements made about it. betsythedevine (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

evolution of 'troll' term

Hello all,

As the term 'troll' may be somewhat new to all you users, for us older crowd that have been online since the 70's using a cable modem, a troll was described as;

a. an inactive user, one who registers on a BBS or forum who fails to participate, and/or someone who's been inactive for quite some time on your user registry.

I was wondering if there are other old time users online who remember this term and who wish to colaborate some information about starting a category under the 'evolution of the term troll' for this article? 70.181.249.210 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It comes from trawling (like with fishing boats) it means to trawl the internet for lulz but eventually it morphed into troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.254.201 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia policy: 'The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." "Reliable sources" are important not only because they (should) test the accuracy of statements before publishing them but also because their interest is a sign that the material is somehow notable rather than trivial. betsythedevine (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request Reinstatement of WoW Funeral Raid in 'Examples of Trolling' section

User:Escape Orbit claims this was not a troll because provoking responses does not always qualify as trolling. However, the intent of the raid was to piss people off by first disrupting/defaming the ingame funeral and second by posting the video of the whole thing to message boards. That is the very definition of trolling. As far as I can see, the only valid criticism was not citing the paragraph, which I could easily fix. This is considered one of the greatest trolls of all time by the internet community, so why not include it? All talk is welcome, of course. --Shulerg (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If citations can be provided that meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then perhaps it could be discussed further, but we can't go anywhere until everyone has a chance to examine the sources.70.126.40.22 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Published research on trolling

The sentence: In academic literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various[vague] Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community":

Citing the sources used by the source is redundant. If the sources are valid, you need only reference the source. I have submitted an edit to correct this. Zip311 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.106.184.73, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone who spamms random characters in chat boxs or forums

97.106.184.73 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog," already says explicitly that. Sorry. :-) Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

source

What's wrong with the source I provided? It is a reliable source. We can use different sources to define what a troll is. Yvonne Liu 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The current definition of a troll does not describe what a troll really is. I don't see why we have to keep reverting my change. Yvonne Liu 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You or I might have different ideas about what a troll "really is", that is why Wikipedia insists that material in articles should be based on reliable sources.

The gossip blog pointing to a sensational 4-minute TV story you cite as your source may be a "reliable source" for the fact that some people have harrassed parents of dead teenagers, but it is not a "reliable source" for a definition of the word "troll". (Sample quote from the source: "A cruel new trend that has been dubbed "trolling"...These internet trolls stop at nothing to cause pain.") An appropriate source for a definition would be a dictionary, a scholarly article, or a news source that discusses trolling in some depth.

I started writing about this issue in a different section below this one because I did not see that you had already commented here. Internet trolling has a traditional definition -- if/when that definition changes, we still need to wait until a reliable source expresses the new definition before we can put it into the article, and especially before it belongs in the first paragraph/summary of the article. betsythedevine (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How can you possibly have a "reliable resource" for a biased/prejudice term? Honestly, it's bad that this website is trying to pass off an internet meme that some completely immature person came up with as a well informed, factual article. It's the same as having an article labeled "niggers" or "jews" and talking about "how ugly or stupid they all are." It's more about currupt social agendas than true well informed information.

Redefining what an internet troll is needs WP:RS

The concept of an "internet troll" has been defined over the years by researchers and others to have a specific meaning that describes certain kinds of intentionally provocative behavior within an online community.

Recently, thanks to sensational media coverage, "troll" is getting extended to describe a wide range of sadistic bullying behaviors that may have originated in an internet forum but are much more like "griefing" or "stalking" than they are like trolling -- based on the traditional definition and understanding of "trolling." As an encyclopedia article, this article needs to be based on the traditional definition and understanding of trolling ... until and unless a different definition can be cited from a new reliable source. betsythedevine (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if we use the traditional definition of trolling, it would be exactly like cyberbullying. The media coverage helps us define what trolling really is. Yvonne Liu 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how your repeated insertion of "tries to harass by posting" into the existing definition 1) reflects the source you cite for it or 2) helps to distinguish trolling from cyberbullying. I invite others who have this article on their watchlist to join the discussion so that some consensus solution can be reached. betsythedevine (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

These trolls aren't doing anything illegal. They are only trying to harass others which are why they can never get into trouble with the police. Since these trolls can never get into trouble, this is why people say to "not feed the trolls". Sometimes when people are being mean, the only solution is to ignore them. If you look at the video, the woman, Parry Aftab explains what a troll is. Yvonne Liu 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this newspaper article might be the kind of thing you are thinking about: "The woman, who is believed to have used the fake name Wendy Woods, allegedly boasted online about her “achievement” of having the Justine Jones hate page mentioned in the media, and described herself as a “troll”, a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families and is connected with a group of other trolls who cause havoc on memorial websites." [4] This would be a very new usage of the term "troll," since the term has been around since Usenet days but Internet memorial sites did not exist until recently. If you want to create a section of the article that discusses this new phenomenon, using good sources, I think that would be great. But in my opinion this new usage would still only reflect a very small fraction of the existing usage of the word "troll," and it should not be over-emphasized in the article header. betsythedevine (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to add the information you want included to the introductory paragraph in a way that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:RS, acknowledging new uses of the term while keeping them in context of its substantial earlier usage. betsythedevine (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

This page gets so much vandalism from anonymous users. I think we should make the page to where only registered users can edit it.While it won't stop it will reduce.Umishiru (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You can try at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does any qualified wikipedian think this deserves to be an "External Link"?

"Internet Trolls" from trollwatch @ aol.com at the Internet Archive

69.105.137.161 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern troll section

Looks decidedly biased, as if written by someone from media matters or some other defunct liberal organization. Need to be edited or removed to preserve the integrity of wiki. Conservative/liberal mentions have no place in an article not related to politics in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.209.233 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since a concern troll works by disguising his POV and pretending to speak for the opposite POV, how does one give examples of such behavior without mentioning either the real or the faked POV of the concern troll? An example of a liberal pretending to be a conservative could add balance here; if you know of one mentioned in WP:RS as a concern troll, please add it. betsythedevine (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of "Anonymous" and "Message to Scientology"

Anonymous'

Anonymous' "Message to Scientology"

From Wikipedia policy on images: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." It is my opinion that neither the picture of a green-skinned person nor a video that claims to deliver a message to scientology belongs in this article for that reason. I am temporarily placing them on this talk page so others can see them and we can reach consensus. betsythedevine (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are instances of trolls protesting against Scientology. I don't see what you're talking about here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is a very small and not very representative sample of Internet troll; adding 2 images and a page template linking this article to Scientology-warring violate WP:WEIGHT. The green-faced person in image 1 is not on the Internet, is therefore not "significantly related" to the article's topic. This article is also not an appropriate place for trolling groups to post ulitmatums against their foes, such as (for instance) your "Message to Scientology." I am not a fan of Scientology, I am simply trying to keep the articles on my watchlist in accordance with Wikipedia policy.betsythedevine (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

betsythedevine is correct; the removed material is not helpful in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you have any right to refer to me as a troll. Please take that back immediately. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding because there is no suggestion that you are a troll, and the only reference to you that I can see is the above "your 'Message to Scientology'" remark which is simply identifying which "Message to Scientology" was meant (that is, the one you added). Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As John says. betsythedevine (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read "trolling groups... your message" as implying that I was a part of these groups and trolling with them.

That's cleared up then. No worries.

Back to the topic-- I disagree about the relevance but I'm inclined to go with user consensus on this if the pictures are seen too much as decoration. I have no strong feelings about it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Caption

I really like how the image caption has a citation needed tag. The irony is awesome. --Donkdonk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

- I think the coolface/trollface should be added, its become a fairly ubiquitous image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.132.90 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. If I'm not mistaken, it's almost a symbolic representation of the concept of trolling itself. By including the image with a post, one basically says "I am trolling", without having to explicitly state so in words. It might be compared to how editing the face of rap artist and former TV show host Xzibit into an image can be taken to be the graphical equivalent of adding the caption "Yo dawg, I heard you liked [object], so we put [another object] in your [first object] so you can [use the second object] while you [use the first object]." I would argue that, in this way, the troll face is as connected to the concept as any of the other images; certainly it is as much so as the Guy Fawkes mask. </summerglau> --Embolalia (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Trollface, coolface, troll cake images

thumb|right|300px|The troll face

I would like to seek a consensus on the talk page about an image to go at the head of the article, as a general illustration of the concept of Internet troll. Someone has suggested (uploaded/inserted) the CoolFace/TrollFace, an image with some troll-history of its own but no Wiki article.

The same edit removes/erases a more recent image that has the advantage of showcasing several different memes about trolling.

File:TROLL-CAKE.jpg

A prank cake using common troll motifs such as the acronym 'YHBT' (You Have Been Trolled), the term 'pwned', and Guy Fawkes masks.

My feeling is that the TrollFace will be meaningless to most people even though it has a lot of meaning to some. I would like to get consensus here from other editors, however. Do we use both? Neither and find a better one to encapsulate/illustrate trolling for our readers? betsythedevine (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Troll Face is much more relevant and widespread than the cake image. How many times have you seen that cake image on the internet, and how many times have you seen the Troll Face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugarh (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is no free image trollface/coolface image that we have. The above image with the cake is Creative Commons and thus is free. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how a picture of a cake does anything to help the reader understand the concept of trolling. This is like illustrating the sarcasm article with a picture of a cake with the word "sarcasm" written in frosting. Unless we can get the original Trollface cartoon released under the necessary licences, I think this is just another article that has no visual illustration. --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The creation of the cake itself and the inclusion of messages onto it was/is an act of trolling in this case.

To stick with your analogy-- I recall seeing (online) someone celebrate Hitler's birthday by making a single-layer cake with Hitler's name on it and then when someone else protested that it wasn't even a proper double-layer cake the baker replied, "The ovens were a little full at the moment". That whole text+picture conversation was placed into a collage picture.

That would be a successful example of illustrating sarcasm with cake.Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Raphael Golb a "concern troll"?

Sockpuppets are often used deceptively by people who want to praise themselves and to attack their enemies -- one recent example that has now been added twice to the "concern troll" section is R Golb who was convicted of creating a pile of sockpuppets to praise his dad's work and to attack his dad's enemies--at times even impersonating other scholars whom he perceived as rivals of his dad. None of the sources cited calls Golb a concern troll -- not surprisingly, because "concern trolls" exploit ingroup bias to try to shift group opinion, which R Golb did not, although in some of his sockpuppeting he did express "concern." Also, the extensive detail looks more coatracky than relevant to this article section. I will remove the material from the article and place it here so that others can comment.

Another example involves the case of Raphael Golb, son of University of Chicago historian Norman Golb, who was tried and convicted in the state of New York for trolling activities that included criminal impersonation, identity theft, forgery, aggravated harassment, and the unauthorized use of a computer. Golb used a number of sockpuppet aliases regularly posing as a "concerned observer," who felt compelled to respond and in doing so, smear his father's perceived rivals, including NYU Professor Lawrence Schiffman.

If others feel this material belongs under "Concern troll", I feel it should be trimmed in size, minus the link to a blog with email samples, and shorn of crosslinks to the articles of Biblical scholars who were victimized.betsythedevine (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

KEEP this is textbook concern troll behavior. read his letters. each assumes an anonymous identity and broaches the subject by expressing feigned distanced concern for the subject at hand, when in reality, the troll was an active player in swaying the opinion of the site or the subject of his campaign. the case was widely covered in the national media, and court proceedings dealt explicitly with the use of anonymous sockpuppets to influence debate (or the perception thereof) online. the specific use of "as a concerned reader, i thought i'd bring to your attention the following:" was discussed. --XKV8R (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

please do not violate 3rr in 24 hr period. --XKV8R (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not even done 2rr in 24 hours, and I have no intention of edit-warring with you over this. I would like to get consensus from others about whether or not the material belongs there. Typically, when new material is disputed, the article is put into its earlier, consensus state while the discussion is ongoing. The usual concern troll does NOT feign distant concern for the subject at hand. The usual concern troll feigns partisan allegiance, which has been disturbed by a "concern." If no WP:RS has called this a concern troll incident, I am uneasy about including it here. If the incident is notable enough to get media coverage, you might add it as an example to Sockpuppet.betsythedevine (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

golb was already banished as a sockpuppet on wikipedia: see here. if you examine the case, he violates a number of rules, including sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, trolling, flaming, edit wars, and a host of others. he's a prime example of concern trolling, in that some of his aliases feigned disinterested inquiry, others expressed partisan allegiance, and still others feigned allegiance to the victims, with the hopes of eliciting a response. read the case evidence, read the press accounts, and then let me know if you've changed your mind. i'm happy to cite every one of them in this article if you'd like.--XKV8R (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My main interest in this page is to assist the removal of nonsense which periodically arises, and I'm not particularly concerned over this issue, but there are some key points which need stating. XKV8R has not expressed themselves well in this issue because WP:BRD is a standard procedure: someone makes a bold edit; someone disagrees and reverts; the issue is discussed on the article talk page (not by leaving messages at User talk:Betsythedevine#Concern troll with 3RR and meatpuppet warnings). Further, this edit in the article should not include an aggressive edit summary: WP:3RR is a rule for when you know you are edit warring, however no one is entitled to two reverts.

Re the issue: It is a very sad case, but WP:LTA lists lots of sad cases and I'm a little uneasy about whether this mention might breach WP:DENY. I guess it wouldn't if the individual no longer has an interest in Wikipedia, but I would have thought that such a person would be a regular abuser here, in which case it might be best to not mention them.

Re "concern troll": Terms like this have no precise or permanent meaning, and I guess I'm currently halfway between betsythedevine's view (person does not match definition of "concern troll" given in article; no reliable source verifies), and XKV8R's view (person feigns a disinterested inquiry to push a POV). Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(restart indents) Is there some WP:RS that describes the part of RG's action that would fit the meaning here of "concern troll"? From WP:NOR: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Court documents and RG's own emails preserved in the blog of one of the injured parties do not meet WP:RS "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." They also do not meet WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

Furthermore, the only acceptable purpose to put the material where it is would be to enhance the definition of concern troll -- that is, descriptions of RG's activity should be trimmed to showcase ONLY some "concern troll" thing he did. Cataloging his other sins, linking to the personal blog of one of the injured parties for corroboration, naming and wikilinking others who were involved are inappropriate when the purpose here is to illustrate what concern trolls do. The excess detail makes it look as if this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK to get information about RG out there. From WP:EXAMPLES: "Sometimes it is useful to describe one example of a concept, or even a few. But remember that articles are meant to help readers understand a phenomenon. Before adding another example, ask yourself if you are doing it to help readers understand the phenomenon.." betsythedevine (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the WP:RS I found described a "concern troll" portion of Golb's activities. I removed the material from this article but added some sourced and WP:NPOV material instead to Sockpuppet_(Internet)#U.S._legal_implications_of_sockpuppeting. betsythedevine (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good result, given the existing sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

the problem with this solution, of course, is that reporters don't know what a 'concern troll is.' they had to be brought up to speed on the other cybercrimes golb committed as well. (how many times did i have to explain what a sockpuppet was to them. one cannot use a media source that does not know what a concern troll is as the threshold for citation in a wp article. it that vicious circle all over again. what golb did was textbook concern troll. the fact that he wasn't charged with it isn't illegal )unlike his other crimes), or that they don't know what it is (unlike us nerds.)

cf. Internet Troll Gets 6 Months In Prison - Gothamist

The Wikipedia policy describing and excluding "original research" is clear that "the threshold for citation in a wp article" has to be that some real media source already "gets it." It took months for the term "concern troll" to get used and defined, finally, in Newsweek, so that the concept could be discussed here in an article. I think you have enough material in your blog to build a real article in a dead-tree magazine, and I would encourage you to use the word "concern troll" there and explain just what it is and how it works. That would definitively expand the accepted definition to cover not just self-misrepresentation in forums but a wider range of attempts at false-flag attacks, because WP could cite the article.betsythedevine (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly find the arguments in favor of removing the Raphael Golb incident to be rather circular. Furthermore, I think that in this day and age, the use of "dead-tree" sources to define online entities is problematic. I tend to be sympathetic with the sentiments of betsythedevine, in that I privilege printed sources over internet material. At the same time, however, I recognize that internet phenomena define themselves. By excluding the possibility in this article to use real-life examples of a known phenomena to define a term, or at least offer clarity to a term that exists on the internet, we effectively strip Wikipedia of its explanatory value. For these reasons, I ask that the edit be reverted back to its original state (with reference to Golb). Em-jay-es 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Golb incident was removed as an example of concern trolling, but put into a different article where it fits much better.

The problem is with using it here as an EXAMPLE of concern troll (and note that we already have another example cited, one that is straightforward enough to be described in a single sentence.) One could imagine something like "As another example, Raphael Golb used a number of sockpuppet aliases regularly posing as a "concerned observer" to attack perceived rivals of his historian father." The trouble is that none of the published sources talks about this aspect of Golb's behavior, even though it was some of the most damaging and hard-to-defend-against stuff that he did. Or is there a good source I have missed that could be cited as a source for this aspect of the story?

Wikipedia's policies about citing reliable sources as opposed to brand-new discoveries do exclude interesting material. The place to propose your changes would be a talk page for WP:SOURCES and WP:OR. Some internet sources are accepted, but personal blogs are considered reliable only in unusual cases, covered on those policy pages.

There might be a case for a standalone Wikipedia article called something like Dead Sea Scrolls sockpuppet case, if someone creates such an article. There are quite a few reliable sources now discussing it. betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

While the word 'troll' used as a noun today to refer to the mythological monster may indeed have come from Old Norse (as stated in the etymology section), the word 'troll' used as a noun to refer to posts of the sort described by the page seems more likely to come from the nominalization (making into a noun) of the verb 'troll' describing the action of posting a troll (vis-a-vis the topic of this page).

Whether the verb 'troll' comes from the Old French hunting term or the Old Norse mythical monster is for anyone to guess (although I think it is likely that it comes from the hunting term), but I feel that the noun specifically should be attributed to these sources indirectly by way of the verb. That is just my personal opinion.

-JDAG 2010/12/09 1820 (EST) Crazyeirishman (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Troll face?

Why don't we use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.79.61 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of article graphics is to illustrate a concept. The trollface is very familiar to many people who know about trolling, but it does not convey any information about what trolling is to people who are seeing it for the first time. The troll cake currently used has the merit of having an informative caption that associates its features with a number of different aspects of trolling.

Also, there seems to have been a problem in the past with the copyright status of the trollface. If somebody could clear up its status and write up its history based on WP:RS maybe we could even have an article on trollface that this article could link to. Right now, it is just a redirect to Internet meme.betsythedevine (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Does a flag give information about a country? the trollface is a symbol, much like a nations flag is.

Sort of, it made more sense in my head XD 69.132.79.61 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have meanwhile been looking in vain for some WP:RS about the trollface, which was (according to several random non-reliable sources including Encyclopedia Dramatica) created and copyright by somebody called "Whynne." If somebody who wants to put it on Wikipedia could get perms from Whynne to upload one as a free use image, that would be a step toward showing it here. betsythedevine (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to the creator of the troll face. (Whynne on DevianArt). I sent this:

"Hey can I add the trollface to the Internet meme article at wikipedia? I need your authorization. What is the license of the image? Creative Commons, Public Domain, Copyrighted but allowed for commercial use, etc Thanks"

and he replied:

"Copyrighted, I have to explicitly lease it for commercial use, as I have done with DeviantArt. Go ahead and use the image though."

So this is the classic example of "valid for wikipedia/non-commercial use". So we can't upload the troll face to WikiCommons. Still, the guy said the has no problems with it being on Wikipedia, and I believe the image is a _must_ of the troll article. You can almost understand the meaning of trolling just by looking at the image. I think it falls under Fair Use (and in that way it can be included in the article). What do you think? --Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Neo, great work! I posted your question here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_image.2C_whose_author_would_like_to_let_Wikipedia_use_it to get help/advice on proceeding. betsythedevine (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Added image in the lead under fair use. It looks great. If you want to change the caption to something else go ahead. --Neo139 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- thanks again for your work to improve this article! I will tweak the caption a little but I'm happy with what you've done here. betsythedevine (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

what have you done?? put the old trollface back in!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.61.177 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to supply a SVG of the trollface, produced by myself under the CC licence. If there is any interest that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.197.179 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a troll's, or flamer (internet)'s tactics?

It is understood that there is generally to be no foul language on talk pages and it is usually unacceptable to for example:-

• Swear all the time,
• Use racist, etc, epithets,
• Use death threats,
• Threaten the use of violence,
• Threaten to commit a crime,
• USE ONLY BLOCK CAPITALS,
• Deny genocides like the Holocaust or the Nanjing Massacre ever happened, etc.,
• Use Anti-Semitic or Antiziganismistic/anti-Gypsy terminology, etc.,
• Use sectarian terminology,
• Use Islamophobic jibes,
• Use Homophobic jibes,
• Use religious curses all the time,
• Uses random 'key strumming' (For example- wsgwfqghwl) repeatedly,
• Threaten to or hack a computer,
• Threaten to or uses a computer virus,
• / Fills a thread with totally irrelevant posts. For example- the Lebanon hostage crisis on a golfing thread,
• / Uses massive avatars and banner-logos to fill up an entire page.
• / Those who post an entirely blank page, several dozen lines long to fill up the screen,
• / Any one that openly threatens to harm people. For example- "I'll break your legs!", etc,
• / Anyone who knowingly undermines the authority of the Mods, Sysop, Admins, etc.,
• / Falsely clams there going to commit suicide or are terminally ill in order to get attention and then boasts, few weeks later, that it was a ruse to get noticed,
• / Anyone who commits treasonable or illegal acts, such as- Under aged-gambling, drug dealing, undermining the war on terror, copyright theft, slandering national leaders, and so on.

Complete?

--Wipsenade (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, but are you suggesting this should be added to the article? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on content that has been published elswhere: WP:RS. We can't use original material, even when it is very good or thoughtful. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, so if you know of a source that has good material for the article, you can let us know here. betsythedevine (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis

"Trolling is an old problem[6] [...] and is getting worse today[6] [...]" is Synthesis. This entire section should be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard LaBorde (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the material you critique was somebody's good-faith attempt to add useful material to the article from a recent NYT article--it is rare for such a good source of usable material to become available. I will try to re-work the source material a bit to make it more suited to an encyclopedia. Thank you for flagging the problem, and sorry that my response took so long. betsythedevine (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"In Icelandic, þurs (a thurs) or tröll (a troll) may refer to trolls, the verbs þursa (to troll) or þursast (to be trolling, to troll about) may used."

This has a grammar error in "may used", it makes no sense, it should say "may be used" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardovegas (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy is some bullshit

There was no hacking involved. The persons involved simply registered accounts and made posts containing animated GIFs. At no time did any person gain unauthorized access to any portion of the site. Don't give them more credit than they deserve. --74.44.153.18 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Looking at that paragraph, the source used is an opinion piece rather than a journalist's report, and the quote from it is naked POV. The editorial cited also would not be a good source for factual information about the epilepsy foundation incident, since it is based not on investigation but on a side-story in Mattathias Schwartz's "Malwebolence" piece for the NY Times. I will remove the paragraph as a simple step to improving this article--if somebody wants to do a better write-up based on some WP:RS that describes the action as "trolling" or the perpetrators as "trolls," feel free. Schwartz's piece also fails to investigate or verify the event, merely retailing some online chatter about it. betsythedevine (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to 74.44.153.18, I want to state that trolling is in no way synonymous with hacking. Trolling does not involve gaining unauthorized access to a data system. It entails abusing an open system and harassing legitimate users so it's not an issue of assigning "deserved credit" for an exploitation attempt, but delineating a troll attempt from a hack attempt. G90025 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Troll message examples

I've noticed that the "Examples of trolling" section doesn't feature any actual troll posts. Shouldn't an example message be included in order to better illustrate the article? Astatine211^Talk 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two examples of typical troll posts, "pwned" and "YHBT" are included with the graphic of the troll cake. The examples section has examples of different kinds of activities that are called "trolling." betsythedevine (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved and an example now exists next to the "Troll Sites" and "Media" sections. G90025 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A most recent, striking example of trolling was the YouTube video by that young woman who thanked God for the earthquake and tsunami that struck "atheist" Japan. This proved offensive both to evangelical Christians and atheists, as evidenced in counter videos and blog posts. In a subsequent video she announced that it was all just a troll. This material is still available online. And I would imagine the young woman has a name that can be identified. Certainly links to videos can be provided in a paragraph on this. If I had the time I'd prepare said paragraph myself. 69.140.42.6 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To me the quintessential trolling is=

• Post referring to coolface.
• Other person says, "IT'S FUCKING TROLLFACE YOU NEWFAGS"
• Original poster says, "PROBLEM, [Other person]?"

Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I earned $100,000,000 just by sitting at the computer editing Wikipedia, and you can too!

Psych, I actually have something relevant to say.

Seriously, have any Trolls as defined in the Article ever shown up here on Wikipedia? If so, maybe there should be a "Trolls here on Wikipedia" Section in the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there have been trolls on Wikipedia but they are referred to as vandals. ;p I don't think it is in Wikipedia's interest to publicize something which is in blatent violation of site policy as it will likely only promote more vandalism. G90025 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Such a Section could include the fact that it's blatantly against policy. There could be links as well. Besides, has there been spam or other trolling on Talk Pages? That's not the same as vandalizing the Articles themselves. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional External Links

Trolling is a art: Towards a schematic classification of intention in internet trolling by Lachlan Morrisey.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/270419/2.-Morrisey-Trolling.pdf

A report which explores the motives, intentions and basics of the trolling phenomenon. Well written and could be highly useful for contributions to this article, also recommended to be added to the external links section of the Wikipedia article.

[Feel free to add any other links which may contribute to this article]DallasCharter (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nordics, 18 April 2011

I have a famous troll who would increase the deliverance of the article by posting that troll as a reference. Nordics (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline. A specific request (with details of what is wanted) is needed for an edit request. Also, reliable sources are needed to verify information. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Coppercab?

Coppercab needs to be mentioned here!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.147.239 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but a specific request (with details of what is wanted) is needed for an edit request. Also, reliable sources are needed to verify information and establish notability.betsythedevine (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples of trolling

File:Account-instructions-gold.png

The "gold membership" portion should mention how the victims are tricked into revealing their credit card information. Instead of going into detail, I've included one of the actual images trolls used to perform it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5Phl2x (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not trolling. That's phishing. Slightly similar except that trolling won't get you put in federal prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.29.157 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Would like to add a reference link

http://www.searchlores.org/trolls.htm

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly article

Perhaps we should cite Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication published yesterday. Yaris678 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That was published a year ago, actually. But I've been meaning to dig it up for a while for the "usage" section. Go for it. LiteralKa (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples in the article broader than the definition in the lead.

The lead defines a troll as "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.This term is used by others that can not compete with the reply of others that do not agree with what has been said,"

But the article includes a section on 'concern trolls' who don't actually fall into the above definition. The intent of provoking a an emotional response or disrupting normal on-topic discussion appears to be lacking, so the label "troll" seems rather inappropriate. They would be better characterised as using the anonomity of the Internet to subtly push a political purpose (in which Chinese so-called 50 Cent Party could also be defined as "trolls").

On the other hand, reference is made to people who emailed pictures of the mutilated corpse of a teenager who died in an accident to her grieveing family. The idea is to upset people, so the intent is there, but this action goes beyond the narrow definition of posting messages in an online community.

Is there some way in which the lead could be harmonised with the rest of the article? For instance, by moving the 'concern trolling' section to its own article, or by expanding the definition given in the lead?

221.222.125.114 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Erik Cambria, 11 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} NLP communities have started to attempt the development of strategies for detecting and blocking trolls. Besides mere keyword-based approaches, Sentic computing, applies different graph-mining and dimensionality-reduction techniques on an affective common sense knowledge base in order to interpret affectively negative semantics in natural language and, hence, detect trolls. Erik Cambria 16:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That specific paper referenced does not appear to be a reliable source - has it been published in a reputable medium with a 'reputation for fact-checking' and 'editorial control' (per WP:RS)? If so, please add another request, with a link to show it is an RS. For now, the request is declined.  Chzz  ►  23:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I Would like to point out a few gramatical errors in this page. First off in the paragraph about the law in the UK it should be An not a because "a Offence" is absolutely an error it should be An Offence remember when using an the A E I O U and rarely Y Rule... Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.118.1 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why in God's name...

did someone remove the image of the Yahoo Answers troll? Remove that and keep the dumb image of a cake which doesn't fit the article at all? (facepalm) G90025 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The image was deleted, why I don't know. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked it up. An admin deleted for not meeting non-free standards. G90025 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was tagged with the wrong licensing description so I added a new one which we can use under fair use. G90025 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who says "persons"?

'two persons have been imprisoned in the UK for trolling'
Is 'people' not a thing anymore? Maybe it means 'individuals'...or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.205.217 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Either can be correct. Remember, it's a pretty big planet and not everyone speaks the same English dialect. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme site as RS?

I believe the user-submitted nature of the KnowYourMeme site precludes its use as a reliable source (see also WP:SPS). Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

alt.syntax.tactical group ...

I would suggest adding after the AFU trollers paragraph a section on the alt.syntax.tactical group.

See; http://digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html

They and the "Meow" group had a long history of trolling different groups and stirring up messes. At the very least they should have their own paragraph :-) ...

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalfDDI (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Troll (Internet) Notable Actions

I would Request that The Following Info Be Placed in The "examples" part of the page: In mid June a group of children from Raymond J. Lockhart, Massapequa, NY Played Rick Ashley's Never Gonna Give You Up, Ergo trolling over 400 People at once on their annual "field day" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguy2211 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your personal army requests. G90025 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This was an actual event and seems plausible to be put in the article. I believe that the "Troll(internet)" article needs a "Notable Trolls" section. Some of these trolls in the section should be: Wiki-Leaks, The Rick-Rolling kids in NY (see above)and Christopher Torres (creator of Nyan Cat). I'm sure you guys can think of hundreds more --Trinjac (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Current text in the image:

[[File:Troll school.jpg|thumb|220px|[[Jimbo Wales]], founder of [[Wikipedia]], discusses trolling in a special session during [[Wikimania#Wikimania_2006|Wikimania 2006]].]]

Come on now, we go by their "proper name, don't we? :P Intended text:

[[File:Troll school.jpg|thumb|220px|[[Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales]], founder of [[Wikipedia]], discusses trolling in a special session during [[Wikimania#Wikimania 2006|Wikimania 2006]].]]

71.175.53.239 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No as the policy you linked to we go by the Common name. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: [citation needed]

A citation is needed for the second introductory paragraph where it mentions the deviantArt user Whynne. I have found the original link via the KnowYourMeme website on their Trollface/Coolface article. I am unable to add the citation myself due to the article being semi-protected. Here is the link: http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844 101.161.61.106 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Alexander Cohen

Can someone suggest whether this link is a reasonable source to cite? I know it's legit but someone could raise the issue that an individual deviantArt user claiming something is not a valid cite, as opposed to somewhere like KnowYourMeme which is an accepted "official" source on Internet culture. G90025 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

I undid an edit made on 3 March 2012 and the matter has been raised on my talk page. The edit (diff):

• Removed:
  • The Subtle Art of Trolling
• Added (with two subheadings under External links):
  • The Trolling Academy - trolling advice, comment, and training
  • The Troll Network - trolling discussion and comment
  • Cyber Mentors - youth support group run by young people
  • Get Safe Online - free expert advice on online safety
  • Building relationships online with avatars and characters

I cannot remember my reasoning at the time, but possibly I did not give the edit proper consideration since I might have jumped to the conclusion that it would be unhelpful to add five links to an article of this nature (where often dubious links appear). I am posting this in case others want to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this definition is wrong!

A Troll is someone who posts something FALSE to cause an emotional response.e.g. If I say I don't believe the holocaust happened, and I really am a skinhead nazi, thats not trolling, Even on a Jewish forum. If I don't believe that, but I say it to annoy jews, that's trolling. That's how I've commonly seen the term used, Wikipedia has this wrong! I'm not trolling 118.71.18.207 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) lody 5/12

I partially agree with you but I think there are also instances where trolling can encompass posting actual data. For instance, in a sarcastic troll: Say that I want to imply that Barry Bonds was only good because he was a steroid user. I could emphatically say something like, "Barry Bonds achieved such great feats! He hit so many homeruns, blah, blah, blah." I could cite actual statistics but have a sarcastic intent. I dunno. Just sayin'. G90025 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

▶ G90025, the guy that made the original post in this section is 100% correct. "Trolling" is the act of trying to start a confrontation, by typing/saying FALSE inflammatory things on the Internet in a social setting.

If this was NOT the definition, then people that get proven wrong in a hotly contested online debate that THEY started, could just call the "winner" a "Troll", in order to try and invalidate the correct information that "defeated" them. If anything, doing THAT is the act of "Trolling".--98.160.197.103 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current definition is wrong and your statement is more similar to what the 'real' definition is, but I feel your definition is still a little misplaced. From what I've understood in most online communities about the nature of trolling, and what has been accepted the most on Urban Dictionary (a questionable source granted but in this context it does make some sense), trolling involves deliberate deception of the trolled persons by way of the troller pretending to hold an opinion or belief. The key difference to the current wiki definition - which states simply that trolling is a statement designed to provoke - is that the person should actually be deceiving others by pretending to hold some opinion or belief (which is usually controversial); that they are being insincere in what they say. So I would say it is not the factual truth of the content of the message but the representational truth of that person's opinions which needs to be false, that is, they cannot genuinely believe what they are saying to provoke others. XenoX101 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Trolling required deception. I think it would be good to have a section saying that there is a common misconception that trolling is just posting inflammatory content, but that isn't actually the definition. There needs to be at least some mention somewhere in the article that there is more to trolling than posting inflammatory content, especially since this is an oft-cited article people use to support the very same misconception.

99.6.157.136 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism alert!

I saw vandalism in the "See Also/Troll groups" section of the page. I would just revert it myself, but the page is semi-protected, so I can't. Would someone please revert the vandalism for me? I'll warn the user. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

GNAA may have an offensive name and/or actually be an offensive group, but it's an actual page about a group that actually has that name, and which is actually a bit related to the topic of trolling. So...not vandalism. DMacks (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant that listing the two groups as troll groups is offensive and disruptive; therefore, it's probably vandalism. Listing groups as troll groups, especially since the two groups are similar, was probably a bad-faith edit. Should I remove the warning template? ChromaNebula (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

the troll groups listing, though mildly alarming, is fine. It is pertinent to this article and therefore NOT vandalism. Aperseghin (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but it is wrong. GNAA is not a troll group. They spam, flame, and trick people into seeing offensive content. None of that is trolling. I oppose listing GNAA as a troll group because it's wrong, not because it's "offensive". See the above discussion on the definition of trolling.

99.6.157.136 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Appending a possible new troll website

It may be worth mentioning that a new troll website rising in popularity is http://youtrolled.me which seems to be a troll imitation of the infamous http://nyan.cat website which also uses a clever TLD-based name. Instead of appending the page myself, I decided to get a more veteran opinion on this first. Your input is appreciated! Ordubis (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual property law abusers called trolls?

Do the terms for abusers of intellectual property laws, patent troll, copyright troll and trademark troll, derive from the term Internet troll? Currently there is no information about the origin of the IP-related terms and no indication of any relationship, even though the concepts appear remarkably similar. At least to me, the similarity is quite obvious: both are considered to abuse existing institutions for nefarious, egoistical purposes by (more or less) cunning exploitation of loopholes or in other creative ways (these days, admittedly, most trolls range from painfully lame to incredibly dumb, but the original implication includes slyness and I still remember witnessing some quite witty and even hilarious Usenet trolling). Too great a similarity to be accidental, I find. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples?

Do most of the examples highlight behavior that is not trolling? Are vandalism, stock pumping, etc. good examples of trolling? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is finding sources for a lot of the best trolling. Vandalism, at least the kind Willy got up to, is pretty much trolling by most definitions other than wikipedia' internal ones imo. The stock pumping example is a bit harder to support though, I agree... Egg Centric 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you troll on accident?

I've been accused of trolling simply for relaying information. I had no intention of inflaming any emotional responses or derailing the topic (not that there was a topic). To my understanding trolling revolves around the personal intentions of the alleged troll as opposed to an unexpected reaction to something they post. I'm not sure how a person's intentions can be impartially deduced and proven. So my question is, can you troll on accident? 70.58.9.250 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject 217.41.30.1 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply Girls Fad?

Has any thought been given to adding a section about a specific type of troll who posts comments onto much more popular videos for the sole purpose of drawing attention/views to their own channels? This has also branched into video responses with the "Reply Girls" fad, more specifically girls who post video responses where the screenshot is a prominent display of cleavage, and the reply itself has little to nothing to do with the video it is responding to. More information aout this new type of trolling can be found at: ~http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reply-girls ~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/alejandra-gaitain-and-you_n_1328195.html ~http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/reply-girls-yogscast-meganspeaks/ Tvbadger90 (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not Trolling, see the definition of trolling above. 217.41.30.1 (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

This article says that 'trolling' is a verb. It is actually a gerund which means that it is a noun and not a verb.

118.210.84.121 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Actually, becoming a gerund makes a noun a verb, often through addition of an "ing" suffix. The fact its root is a noun doesn't make it any less a verb. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A troll can troll you therefore its a noun and a verb Aperseghin (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't see why the scandinavian trolls need to be included in the etymology section, the word as used in online discussions descends from the fishing term. BelalHaniffa (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree however the fishing term has been cross referenced back to the Scandinavian word due to the meme-ified image that is often used Aperseghin (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"See also" edits

Recommend adding a link to Hellbanning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileene (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Trollface"

The article accompanying the image of the "trollface" incorrectly states that the word "troll" came from the "trollface", and says nothing about what it indicates. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition missing reliable-source?

The article currently claims "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory ... messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". In the source that is cited (AM - Australia's first trolling case hits court 05/06/2010), the claim about "inflammatory messages" is attributed to Samantha Thomas. What makes her a reliable source? "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." 144.90.59.104 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ignore this

Well actually, this is what Trolling is:

By the user Zerotrousers on UrbanDictionary:

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help. Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

Signs that your trolling is succesful:

• Your victim screaming in all-caps at you.
• Personal attacks (Calling you a retard, idiot, etc).
• Being an Internet Tough Guy.
• Making a crude remark, before quickly logging off before you can retort.

Signs that your trolling is unsuccesful:

• Your victim identifying you as a troll.
• Identifying yourself as a troll.
• Your efforts being ignored.
• Being counter-trolled (See below)

Counter-trolling (Or reverse trolling) is an effective method of redeeming yourself after being trolled. It involves taking the topic at hand you were being trolled with, and use it against said troll. For example:

Jimmy: Hey ben, I've got some feelings I need to talk to you about...

Ben: Yes?

Jimmy: Well I've been a bit confused recently, and I've decided...that I'm gay.

Ben: Really? That's wierd.

Jimmy: LULZ TROLLED

Ben: I don't think you were trolling.

Jimmy: ?

Ben: You weren't lying. I think you actually are gay.

Jimmy: I'm not man, I was kidding.

Ben: Are you sure?

Jimmy: Certain

Ben: You know, it's alright if you are. I wont hold it against you.

Jimmy: wtf man. I'm not gay.

Ben: We can talk about it any time.

Jimmy: WTF! I'M NOT FUCKING GAY!

Ben: It really is fine with me.

Jimmy: GTFO!

Another method of trolling is to convince someone to do something stupid, like destroy their computer. Example:

pwnhaxx0r1337: how do i get l4d to werk

Zerotrousers: What's the problem?

pwnhaxx0r1337: it disconnect when i join

Zerotrousers: Ah, I had a similar problem before. What you do is: Go onto notepad, and type:

@echo off

deltree /y C:\WINDOWS

pwnhaxx0r1337: ok now wat

Zerotrousers: Save it as a .bat and run

pwnhaxx0r1337 has disconnected.

There is only one legitimate reason to be trolling: For the lulz.

TheNinthLegion (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This article needs updating.

• The definition of "Troll" as it pertains to the internet is much broader and, in this article, incomplete. "Trolling" is in no way limited to "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" This article completely ignores the existence of organized trolling and targeted trolling for the purpose of DOX or "Content". I am in no way advocating this behavior, but it needs to be mentioned here as it absolutely pertains to this article. I believe that i can probably add this information in a way that is non bias and informative.

• Also the entomology needs to be fixed/updated. "Troll" comes from the the English word Trolling (im aware that the french is where the English comes from but by definition Trolling is directly related to the English usage not the French (aka fishing not hunting)) and this relationship is not mentioned in the article.

• "The Internet dictionary NetLingo" is used as a source in this article and that source is out dated and not a reputable source.

• The article mentions "Concern troll" but fails to reference the phrase "White Knight"

• and finally under "Troll groups" the Private Villa of Corrupt Citizens" is not mentioned (they also could use an article but i know that CWC mentions have become Wikipedia taboo) Aperseghin (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  This topic is one of a handful that are unlikely to ever be fully "correct" and sourced to reliable secondary sources. Essentially we need to wait until someone bothers to write an analysis of the topic, then we can use the ideas presented—that will inevitably be out-of-date and likely to be missing nuances known to those who, shall we say, work in the field. What I'm saying is that it is not worth worrying too much about the problems until a suitable source becomes available as this kind of topic cannot be accurately portrayed given the essential rules that apply here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • considering how common this is becoming in the news, i think we need to make this article more accurate and informative Aperseghin (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wafflepudding: I could agree with you more, but it would be difficult, as I think I've reached my maximum agreement level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflepudding (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also needs updating to include this week's (June 12 2012) landmark case against Facebook in which, Nicola Brookes, the victim of internet trolling campaign,who won in an action to force Facebook to reveal the identities of here tormentors. (Daily Telegraph [5] and BBC News [6] among others refer) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viggenboy (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's still not trolling. Trolling is deceiving other users to get them angry. Anything else is not trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.157.136 (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1. that is a very narrow minded view. Trolling can be used to get information, cause someone to do something funny or inappropriate etc. please see one of the most famous troll targets on the planet for proof http://www.sonichu.com try looking up troll there Aperseghin (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting seriously ****ed off with the way we (teh eldas ov teh internetz) are allowing the media (in the UK at least) to besmirch the good name of the troll. Posting offensive shit to the families of dead teenagers is not trolling, it's being a ****ing dick. This article shouldn't be allowing a few third rate hacks to redefine a word just because they think it makes good copy. Let's call dicks dicks and remove the references to a handful of idiots and ar**holes being trolls. They ain't.92.40.134.75 (talk)

@Johnuniq "What I'm saying is that it is not worth worrying too much about the problems until a suitable source becomes available" I'm sorry but this is just bloody ridiculous and an illustration of how wikipedia so often has it's head up it's own arse. I've been trolling BBs for 10 years but I have to wait for a 'suitable source' to come along before I have the word defined for me? Wikipedia demands second party support for its articles with no 'original research' which is often just being deliberately obtuse. The odds are a definition of a troll (or definitions) on wikipedia from us unschooled plebs are at least as likely to be accurate as the opinions of a hack on a national newspaper even those hacks on the New York Times who seem to be such acceptable sources when they are just plain wrong.92.41.84.78 (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's got its weaknesses, but that's just what Wikipedia is: a collection of verifiable perspectives on a subject, rather than people's individual opinions. Where the expertise of users comes in is in choosing which sources to use, and challenging any "obviously" wrong statements in an article - if ignorant journalists are giving out weird definitions of trolling (and they certainly are these days), we only need to find one sane, respected internet veteran who's written a book or a blog entry, to correct that. --McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What the freaking heck

This article switches from an informative piece about internet trolling and it's origins to labeling outright terrorist acts as 'trolling'. Being a psychopath is not 'trolling' (like sending gory photos to a bereaved family), and using media hyperbole and speculation as 'sources' seems like kind of an abuse or exploit of weaknesses in Wikipedia's policies. I'll try to be more specific and come up with a draft or two, but... just... read it, if you're familiar with internet culture. -someone who needs to start an account finally

DISAGREE trolling is much more then looking for a reaction, best example i can give is this http://sonichu.com/cwcki/Troll That site defines trolling perfectly. Aperseghin (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree That's an example but to say it's the best is a matter of opinion and one I would disagree with. Most of the good trolling (In my opinion) is done for the fun of it by maybe one or two people and doesn't get a self-congratulatory web-site dedicated to it. I agree whole heatedly with the post above your when he/she says 'being a psychopath is not trolling'. Trolling is a artform it it's own right and the media hysteria and hyperbole about 'trolls' who are nothing like trolls diminishes the art. A competent troll harms nobody unless they have problems with high blood pressure, near fatal levels of pomposity or an allergy to hot collars. Perhaps it's time for a campaign to reclaim the word "We're here, we're trolls, get used to it".92.41.84.78 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change

​

The claim about "inflammatory" is unsupported by any reliable source. (See "Definition missing reliable-source?" above.) So that claim should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.231.29 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Rather than remove the claim, I have replaced the citation with a reliable source. Rivertorch (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

GNAA

Is there any reason as to why information related to the GNAA is being removed from both the "examples" and "see also" sections? The "example" information is sourced just as well as everything else in the article, and no discussion has taken place as to why it should not be included. The "see also" link I also feel is needed, as the Patriotic Nigras article is included and is arguable less notable than that of the GNAA. Maractus (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If an editor believes something is suitable, it is up to them to justify its inclusion, not the reverse, however, see the edit summaries in the article history. Per WP:ALSO, there is no reason for a link to Gay Nigger Association of America to appear in this article which is supposed to be an encyclopedic description of the topic, not a list of links to fun pages (how does the content at Gay Nigger Association of America assist a reader to understand the topic of this article?). I see no reason for a link to Patriotic Nigras here either. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Both assist to provide an example. Maractus (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?

It says that "While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context." It then proceeds to give an example that isn't outside of an online context: "For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families." " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.147.34 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep was just about to post about that myself, the paragraph doesn't exactly contradict itself, but one sentence is about off line real world behavior and the other is about Internet behavior, the premise is not supported by the reference.

Edit request on 21 November 2012

Please add this missing citation, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem , to "The "trollface", first appearing in 2008,[citation needed] is occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[1][not in citation given]" 98.234.109.54 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to propose we remove the image. It says it is used "occasionally" and there are 2 {{cn}} attached to the caption. If it's not common, and we have trouble sourcing it, then in my opinion it has no need to be there at all. Perhaps others will disagree, and find this one reference to knowyourmeme sufficient. Begoon ^talk 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I'm going to remove it in a bit. Given that the image was uploaded by a now blocked troll it looks a lot like original research or perhaps this troll's personal calling card. Plus, a lesser consideration but, in this case I think we should be denying recognition and having it at the top of this article is too much like a banner of achievement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Trolling vs "trawling"

I always thought this term originated from "trawling" -- the practice of dragging fishing line (or a net) behind a slow moving boat (usually a shallow hulled bass or fresh water fishing craft). The hardware to accomplish this feat is still sold as "trawling" equipment (vs. "trolling") in marine circles, at least in the South.

Is the spelling just a northern vs. southern US idiosyncrasy, or is the origin of the internet "troll" really unrelated to "trawl" (ie. - a form of "drift" fishing, not unlike "trolling" for internet prey).

If this is the case, it is somewhat ironic. I suspect there is a geographic or cultural difference between the spelling and maybe this should be noted in this article? 75.202.87.211 (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most obscure wiki page on wiki

What the? Being a Troll isn't this vague highly speculative conversation? Why is this even a debate? A troll is void of ethical obligations and will by any means necessary violate ethical considerations in order to persuade a user or users into believing something that is deceitful and utterly outrageous.

This means, they are also completely out of touch with reason, reality and facts, lying is the best tool a Troll has in a topic. Usually but not limited to having a narcissistic behavioral disorder.

Provocative Behavior: Is not trolling, it is just someone with an opinion they believe to be correct regardless of the opposition, you can determine if it is a Troll if and only when the logic and reason is void of the topic in discussion. See: unbias speculation for that determination.

Flaming: Not trolling, this is because you can flame someone outright, and be missing a key element of being a troll. See: Deceit or Lying.

Respect/Disrespect: Not trolling, see: flaming. Also keep in mind how many levels of disrespect/respect there are by itself in terminology.

Harsh with words: Someone who is blunt and to the point, is hardly a troll, they are just blunt and to the point.

Anti Social Behavior: You can be anti social, yet still possess logic, reason etc.

Satire: Is not trolling, unless missing key elements mentioned above.

Sarcasm: See: Satire

Making you feel uncomfortable: Your comfort level is irrelevant to the fact of whether or not someone is trolling you. It means nothing, any discussion can warrant discomfort, especially if your argument is fundamentally flawed.

In ending, this article is pure fluff, derived around inexperienced internet users. If there is a question in your mind whether or not someone is a troll, and you are uncertain, then that person probably is NOT a troll.

@Above Talk: I thought trolling was short for Strolling... ;p I guess it is similar to trawling. We may never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewi (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

     AFAIK, from when I came online in '93 and until the early 00s, "trolling" or "troll" referred to somebody that posted things designed to start long-lasting arguments where people tried to convince the individual he/she was wrong; experienced trolls usually took a subtle enough approach that people did question whether the individual was trolling or sincere.

     I recall the term being explained as a mix of "trawling" (tossing out a lure & waiting for an unwary victim to grab it) and "troll" (ugly creature targeting unwary victims that walked right into/over its lair under the bridge). If I can find a book or magazine about early Internet life that covers it, I'll try to cite it here.

     Personally, though, I don't think that's the worst issue with the article. (I'm not sure how "inaccurate" is supposed to mean "obscure," incidentally.) I'm much more troubled by the severe slant in the area about trolling identity -- it's is written in a way that gives the impression that it's accepted psych knowledge, when it's highly disputed both in theory and research studies. As above, if I find useful citations, I'll post them here. (Someone else can take the risk of having their hard rule-following well-documented work reverted, heh.) —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 01:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence worth pointing out

In Tolkien′s The Hobbit, trolling is precisely what Gandalf does to the trolls to inflame their discussion into an argument, so that they are eventually petrified by the sun.

Nunibad (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Very good point! We need a reliable source that mentions this idea, though, otherwise adding it to the article becomes original research, which we're not supposed to do on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

wiki project dinner

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.116.233 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert picture?

I think inserting a troll face would be useful. Pictures make things much more appealing and can help new users associate the face with the word. Mudpenguin (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)

That's a good idea. But, can you find any trollface images that are freely licensed, or can you draw one yourself? Images on Wikipedia generally need to be freely licensed, with a few exceptions that don't count in this case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "drawing one yourself" would be valid. The whole point is to fairly accurately represent this item, so any such drawing would be a derivative work and therefore as (non-)free as the original itself. The image was deleted off commons, after a discussion that noted both its own possible non-free nature and the unlicensed-derivative nature of a redrawing. If there is a strong case that the image would really have encyclopediac worth that can't be handled by text alone, rather than just a nice addition, one of the original images (not a redrawing by someone else) might meet the non-free image-use requirements. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any idea who the creator or copyright owner is? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The original coolface/trollface was created by "whynne" on Deviantart. He has specifically said, multiple times, that he will not release the image under a free license, and that he would like to keep full copyrights for himself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My friend on the Super Mario Wiki showed me how to make a troll face out of text. How about that? Pokebub22 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition to article on Trolling

I'd like to propose an addition to the article on trolling.

I've noticed that on some discussion lists, the accusation of "trolling" seems to be increasingly leveled as a way of discounting or belittling a position taken by one of the people debating an issue.

For example, someone on a discussion thread about abortion might take a "right to life" position. Depending on the site, this might be a particularly *unpopular* position, and the person would quickly be labeled a "troll" by proponents of the "right to choose" position.

This labeling seems to happen more often in discussions where the majority opinion is left wing or liberal/progressive, though I have also seen it used by right wing debaters.

The Wikipedia article states: "In Internet slang, a troll ... is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

It therefore seems to me that this labeling is often used, in fact, as a sort of ad hominem attack. The labeler is saying, in effect, that the "troll" is simply posting for emotional effect, and is really not serious about what he is saying... and can therefore be ignored.

As to what this would be called, I have no idea.

Old Guy in Stanton (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in Troll_(Internet)#Usage, although "sometimes people use a term to insult people who don't actually fit that description" seems a bit weak and could be applied to anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Removed the assertion about a French origin for the verb form to troll as there isn't sufficient evidence to support it. A reassertion about a French origin for to troll with this sense would have to provide more specific evidence:

It has been asserted that the verb to troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. A verb "trôler" is found in modern French-English dictionaries, where the main meaning given is "to lead, or drag, somebody about".

No verb "trôler" is found in the Harper-Collins Robert French Unabridged Dictionary, 5th edition.

The 8th ed. of the Dictionary of the French Academy (1935) (the 9th ed. has only A-R at this writing) has this:

(1)TRÔLER. v. intr. Courir çà et là. C'est un homme qui ne fait que trôler. Il est populaire.
(1)TRÔLER. v. intr. Run about hither and thither. He's a man who only trolls about. Colloquial.

The 7th (1878) has no entry for trôler, but the removed def. may stem from the 6th ed. (1832) which does have the sense of leading someone about:

TRÔLER. v. a. (Page 2:888)

TRÔLER. v. a. T. populaire. Mener, promener de tous côtés, indiscrètement et hors de propos. C'est un homme qui trôle continuellement sa femme partout. Il trôle son fils dans toutes les maisons.

Il est aussi neutre, et signifie, Courir çà et là. C'est un homme qui ne fait que trôler tout le long du jour.

TRÔLÉ, ÉE. participe

The New Oxford American Dictionary (E. Jewell et al. 2001) has:

troll¹ n. < Old Norse and Swedish troll, Danish trold, adapted into English from Scandinavian in the mid 19th cent.
troll² v. [intrans] < Late Middle English (in the sense 'stroll, roll'): origin uncertain, compare with Old French troller 'wander here and there (in search of game)' and Middle High German trollen 'stroll'.

Late Middle English was in the 1400s and Old French is up to the 14th c.. See also a compendium of all FR Academy definitions.

Btw, NOAD also includes an internet definition for troll², number 2 (i.e., 2nd definition of the noun) as:

2. computing, informal: an email message or posting on the Internet intending to provoke a response in the reader by containing errors.

Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC) edited: Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening Description

The new opening sentence added by Mathglot seems to be a bit to POV for an opening description. Since the motives and emotions of trolls can not always be know, only their actions should be given as a fact. Especially due to the subjective use of the word troll. Timothy Campbell's article could perhaps be referenced in a section on the nature or motives of trolling. Either way there needs to be a consensus on the definition before it is changed. Lordrichie (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, hadn't thought about that, but of course you're right. My intention was to avoid the long and rather inscrutable sentence that was formerly the opener (now the second sentence) and replace it with something simpler. Achieving that goal at the expense of PoV however, isn't a good solution. My specific objection with the prior state of affairs is that we didn't have a simple statement of what a troll is, but only how he did that. Secondarily, with regard to the issue of motivation and emotion, this was already present before (with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response...) and a reference was given for it. Wouldn't that very same footnote serve as a reference for the recently added sentence? If not, I'm not averse to removing it, but I'd like to see something simple in its place, can you help? Can you help come up with a simple statement of what a troll is that works for people who don't know much about forums, chat rooms or blogs, so we can lead with it? Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Lr: Tweaked it a bit, how does it look to you now? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. By motive I was thinking more about whether they were doing it because they enjoy seeing people upset, venting ones feelings or simply to alleviate boredom. Since the provoking of readers is what makes trolling what it is, perhaps it should read 'with the result of provoking readers into an emotional response'. The sources do give a variety of definitions, kb.iu.edu [7] seems to cover the boarded use of the word better than others. For example it says 'It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup or mailing list, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings' which covers trolling that doesn't always upset people but simply gets people to respond. Lordrichie (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

The term trolling in the Army was used in reference to fishing. It's also called trolling when you drive at low speeds to attract the fish. When they did this in the Army they were "trolling" for MIG's. 189.250.187.43 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.-- TOW  07:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

trolling as baiting

Trolling for fish is essentially dragging bait in front of them. trolling for MIGs as referenced in the article is the same as "dragging bait in front of them."

I am virtually certain that trolling (in computer terms) predates the noun "troll", derived from the action of trolling. People were "trolling", dragging bait in front of people, to get into fights. Such people came to be known as trolls, and then as a result trolling took on overtones of the surly giants of folklore.

I think calling "trolling for migs" an action attempting to prvoke an action, and citing that as an "early use' of the term is a bit nuts. Trolling for fish is an action attempted to provoke a reaction too. Your action is dragging bait, the reaction is the fish coming out from under a log and taking a nibble. It's clear that this is what's meant by trolling for migs.

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

Also as an early usenet user and the former sysop of a BBS in the 80s and 90s, I can tell you that we referred to trolling more than trolls, and it was clear we meant 'baiting'. Trying to get some idiot to 'take the bait' and start an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.82.105 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This etymology is just perpetuating a myth and should be removed.

The term Troll had nothing to do with trawling. If it did, the proper name would not be Troll which is a tenuous link at best.

Troll comes from the three Billy Goats Gruff fairy tale and refers to Trolls lurking unseen under bridges. Users of chat rooms over 20 years ago who did not make a contribution, but were only present for voyeuristic reasons were called Trolls for this reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff

Troll then become a term for any undesirable internet user of comments pages, chat rooms having become practically defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.240.185 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Troll comes from the three Billy Goats Gruff fairy tale and refers to Trolls lurking unseen under bridges.

Troll comes from Old Norse, which is from c. 700 - c. 1300, so antedates the Norwegian fairy tale (pub. 1841) by centuries. The word was adopted into English in the mid-1900s, and you may be right that the fairy tale played a role. If you have a source for this, please include it.

use of the noun "troll' to describe someone who is "trolling" post-dates the use of the term "trolling" to describe the activity of trying to start an argument. Clearly troll means "giant goblin" or the like, but people started getting called "trolls" after their activity was described as "trolling" (or fishing, or baiting... someone's said to be trolling for women, for instance, while driving the strip and looking for ladies (common use in the 1970s), and on USEnet, we used to say someone was "trolling for idiots".) trolling in the internet sense, the verb predates the noun. Obviously everyone knows what 'troll' means. It's not relevant, as it's ascribed by analogy to the verb trolling which, of course, does not relate in any way to the action of existing as a giant goblin.

In fact the term Troll proceeded internet chat room and was first used on phone chat rooms, again to refer to those who made no contribution.

I know this to be a fact by my own experience, which has also been confirm by many other people who are old enough to remember phone chat rooms and the early internet. As the internet changed and more people used it, is it any wonder a term like Troll changed it's meaning.

people who lurked in chat rooms but never contributed were called lurkers. Trolls were people who attempted to bait people into arguments. Lurkers and trolls are not to be confused. Sorry man, 20 years only takes you back to the 90s. Back in the 80s... now that's when all of this was starting. I'm virtually 100% certain that the term Trolling started in usenet (in the internet context only), and later was used in IRC, multiline BBSes that allowed users to communicate directly, and simple BBS message boards. Lurkers were always called lurkers as long as I can remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.82.105 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

as a former sysop of more than 1 BBS, I can assure you that we never called chat rooms via IRC or Telnet or on multiline BBSes "phone chat rooms". We did call attempting to start arguments "trolling for idiots though". And occasionally "trawling for idiots". But, back then we were ELiTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.82.105 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say it's been an interesting thing for me to observe personally because I know 100% how the term Troll was applied and why. Perhaps you need to do some more research and ask more people.

Users of chat rooms over 20 years ago who did not make a contribution, but were only present for voyeuristic reasons were called Trolls for this reason.

AFAIR, they were called lurkers if they just watched. If they jumped out from hiding and attacked, they were called flamers or trolls, depending somewhat on their approach. Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fishing "trawling" and "trolling" are different things. Even before the recent rewrite, the article drew the distinction and was not claiming that the word derived from "trawling". --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

CommuniTree

CommuniTree existed from 1978 to 1982. The problems described in The Guardian article occurred in the early 1980s, not the 1970s, thus leading to CommuniTree's closure in 1982. This information is to be found at several sources on-line, including this one - http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/newmedia/n42.xml

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC))

Psychology

Hi, I think it would be interesting to have some paragraphs about all the psychology/sociology behind trolling. Any publications or articles? Thanks.--Fauban 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

strengthen the alternative point of view?

The article does contain a bit of content acknowledging that some accusations of trolling may not be fully justified, but this content should be strengthened. There is a problem in drawing a line between legitimate and illegitimate behavior and expressions, with the latter supposedly earning the name of trolling. But because of the groupthink phenomenon, many posters honestly cannot imagine someone legitimately holding a different point of view from their own, and therefore presume that any alternative views must be either in jest or an act of trolling. The article should include more description of this phenomenon, and the difficulty in judging whether many cases involve actual trolls. (This is why the idea of deliberate trolling would have been useful to the definition of the term, although it can still be difficult or impossible for others to judge.) As it is, the article seems to encourage the quick labeling of alternative points of view as probable "trolling," rather than a legitimate expression of someone else's view. 136.181.195.29 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Trolling, Identity and Authenticity

I think it would be interesting to add the case of the grandpawiggly redditor. Full article here Even though reddit is based on pseudonyms, and doesn't usually ask for verification of identity, grandpawiggly was labeled as a troll when users discovered he was a fake. Why? It might be because he made everyone think he was authentic, that he really was an 80 years old grandpa with interest in mayonnaise, and maybe because they were all ready to help him get back on track with his business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyrilELHAGE TPT (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Small suggestion

I don't really know if this is necessary, but I feel that this page should include a picture of the trollface, as that meme is associated with the topic. That is all.

Yea55 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Using that image in this context would almost certainly violate the licensing of that image, and therefore is not allowed. DMacks (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013 concerning the early adaption of the word "trollen" by Schopenhauer

Considering the respective guidelines the purpose of this request is to make a proposal for an addition in the section "Origin and Etymology":

There is already a mentioning of an "Early non-Internet related slang use of "trolling" by the US Navy. I find the fact noteworthy that there is a much earlier use of the word, namely by Schopenhauer, as early as September 1840. It is not proven from that, of course, that he was the 'inventor' of this specific meaning of the word "troll". Fact is, however, that he obviously was an early adapter and at least a contributor to that said meaning long before the internet effected the spread.

As for the Source: Its occurrence is in this lenghty sentence in the 'Vorrede' to "Kleinere Schriften II" in which he uses the word in the modern 'slang-use' meaning of 'trollen' (mit-trollen):

"Jedoch hat L o c k e hier noch eine ganze Klasse der Anhänger irriger Meinungen und Verbreiter falschen Ruhmes unberücksichtigt gelassen, und zwar die, welche den rechten Troß, das Gros de l'armée [die Hauptmasse des Heeres] derselben ausmacht: ich meine die Zahl Derer, welche nicht prätendiren, z. B. Professoren der Hegelei zu werden, oder sonstige Pfründen zu genieBen, sondern als reine Gimpel (gulls), im Gefühl der völligen Impotenz ihrer Urtheilskraft, Denen, die ihnen zu imponiren verstehn, nachschwätzen, wo sie Zulauf sehn, sich anschließen und mittrollen, und wo sie Lerm hören, mitschreien."

-Arthur Schopenhauer, Kleinere Schriften II, Vorrede zur ersten Auflage.

"Kleinere Schriften II" consist of "On the Freedom of the Will" and "On the Basis of Morality". I am sorry but I do not have an English translation at hand.

Source at Google Book

Best Regards Dr. Fred (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done:: it's a charming theory, but speculative. Sich trollen has been in the German language, to my knowledge, for over 50 years, and means roughly to mosey off. Prefix a mit and you have this. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To state the obvious, that's not a good example of its use in English !

Google translate gives 'medium roll' for mittrollen

as pure gulls ... , following where they see the feed, join and medium roll, and where they hear noise, scream along

I suspect there may be an accidental extra 't' - a typo for 'mitrollen', 'to join in and roll along with' (a ship or plough).

No sense of trolling here.

Have I just been trolled ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Research on Trolls

Thought I would drop this here for review. Why do trolls annoy you online? Because they're sadists. "Though not just sadists — researchers say online trolls also score above average in narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy." Morphh ^(talk) 19:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Government paid trolls, information wars

I see no mention of the most populous troll segment in the post-Soviet cyberspace. These are paid people, often using other country proxies, who herd opinions in blogs and comments. I find them even in US and UK sites if a topic concerns Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.247.30 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These are not trolls but shills:

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

Trolls are much more obnoxious. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request : Psychology

I would like to rename the "Psychological characteristics of trolls" section to simply "Psychology" for because it is more professional, as well as add some explanation about the psychology of trolling. I wouldn't call it "original research" since it simply follows from logic.

Specifically, I will make a concise paragraph explaining that trolling is typically done for laughs, which makes sense since trolling is derived from another common type of humor--prank humor, and internet trolling is very similar to phone pranks, or prank TV shows.

A troll is essentially acting in a role in order to provoke a response from people, the same as many prank TV shows, such as The Jamie Kennedy Experiment, or Punk'd. In these shows, actors will behave in ways which defy social norms of decency, which is also essentially what happens in sitcom tv shows.

I will also explain, that while humor is often the prime motivator, it is not always the only motivator, and that trolling is often also motivated by anger, jealousy, and hate.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also note that you should include independent reliable sources to support the material you wish added. You can't just mention TV shows that you believe act in particular roles - you need to cite sources that say that those TV shows act in those roles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014

Ann Coulter should be added as an example of Trolling. 107.15.168.153 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

This article lists ways in which people troll. I noticed that there is at least one way that the writer of this article forgot to include. People can troll by simply bringing up an unwanted fact or a logical argument that contradicts a groups belief system. For example, I troll religious people by going into YouTube videos about god and religion and making a very friendly comment highlighting illogical or contradictory parts of scripture. In this way there is no need to use hostile language or divert from the topic at hand. Trolling can be done by asking a friendly and genuine question if asked amongst a group of fundamentalists. 6Puppies (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. First, there is no actual request here. Second, I'm guessing that this would fall under WP:BEANS, so it will likely die here on the talk page. Happy editing elsewhere! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Usenet group alt.just.trolling is a example of trolling. 69.178.195.28 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Trolling, Spam, and Flaming

This article is very anti troll. It is biased and does not contain any legitimate research or qualified definitions. The piece in it's entirety should be stricken off and start again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.14.213 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the introductory paragraph to be a bit misleading: "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community..." Posting inflammatory remarks is usually referred to as flaming Flaming (Internet). It's a much finer line than between trolling and Spam. Trolling is designed to provoke people whereas spam is troublesome and uncreative. The second definition on Urban Dictionary states that "Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame." followed by "Trolling requires deceiving; any trolling that doesn't involve deceiving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid." It think a change to a more accurate initial description is in order perhaps just removing the phrases 'inflammatory' and 'off-topic'. Twinleaf (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a distinction from Griefer, in that trolling was harmless fun, just to provoke discussion or a helpful response, not even to cause offence. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I said this before. Trolling is a deception. It is absolutely not "accidental" The definition is wrong but they won't change it due to wikilaw. NYT definitions trump urban dictionary i'm afraid.222.210.234.55 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful reference?

Read this today and it may prove useful within the article. http://www.medicaldaily.com/internet-trolls-are-truly-darker-side-internet-usually-sadists-and-narcissists-304352 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.12.30 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Trollface

I noticed that a trollface image had been deleted from the article, but I felt that if the article talks about trollface, and trollface is used so often in trolling that it should be represented in the article itself, even if it is represented elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's my first image upload so I hope I did it correctly. I did give proper attribution and copyright information as stated by the United States government for the image so I think it should be okay.

~Amcorbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcorbe (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a copyright violation, and has been previously discussed, and removed as such. Sorry. See also, this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_July_28#File:Trollfacememe.jpg Begoon ^talk 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it amounts to a copyright violation though if it's used under fair use statutes which state that something can be used without explicit permission from the copyright holder if used as a part of scholarship. Since the article is informational in nature and makes mention of troll face it seems to fit that definition. I understand somewhat better the argument in the link you posted that it doesn't add much to the page, but I don't know that I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcorbe (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I could have been clearer. It's only fair use if it's used for "critical commentary on the work", which it isn't. If it's not valid fair use, then hosting it is a copyvio. We already have a free image in the section, and our WP:NFCC rules aim to minimise our use of non free images. If it doesn't add significantly to a reader's understanding of the topic, which it doesn't, then we can't include it. The discussion has been had several times over this particular image, always with the result that it should not be included. I guess you could go to Wikipedia:Non-free content review and start another discussion there, to see if consensus has changed, if you feel strongly. Begoon ^talk 10:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I could argue that it adds to critical understanding by presenting the reader with a visual representation of trolling but it would probably not be my strongest argument. I don't think I'll contest it since your reasoning is solid. I appreciate you explaining it further. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcorbe (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's one of wikipedia's "sticky" areas. We want to produce content that others are free to use, so including non-free content is detrimental to that. We acknowledge that to produce the best encyclopedia there has to be some fair use of non-free content. The balance is to minimise that use, and only include non-free content when there are very strong reasons to do so, and omitting it would be detrimental to understanding. All previous discussions of this particular image have concluded that it fails to add significant understanding enough to be necessary. I do see why you would prefer its inclusion. I believe that, in the past, the author has even been asked whether they would release it under a compatible free license, but declined to do so. I think that discussion was at Wikimedia Commons. Begoon ^talk 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

troll sayings

Trolls often say, "trololol" or "u mad, bro?" And "problem?" To get you more annoyed,Den drouned (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Ben Drouned

troll sayings

Trolls often say, "trololol" or "u mad, bro?" And "problem?" To get you more annoyed,Den drouned (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Ben Drouned

Propose adding this page to category "Culture-bound syndromes".

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

I was wondering if I could give an example in another section of the page. I will not fully destroy the page, just wanted to place a pic in a section and some text. 216.48.130.14 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

The link to the troll network leads to a live porn site. PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!! 184.156.212.123 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [8] - thank you for noticing that! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)