Jump to content

Talk:Troll (slang)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Etymology of Internet (Usenet) trolling: rec.humor vs. rec.humor.funny.

An early example of trolling was the ongoing anarchic behaviour in rec.humor, where someone would give a well-known joke, but quite obviously stuff up the punchline. This would provoke howls of outrage and multiple correction posts from people who didn't know that the group was regularly disrupted in this fashion, and the intent of the originator was to provoke a response, and almost always not a genuine mistake.

I believe that this dynamic was part of the reason that rec.humor.funny, a moderated group, was formed. Brad Templeton, the creator/moderator of rec.humor.funny, may be able to shed more light on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.61.216 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

troololololollol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.250.54 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Troll (Internet) → Internet troll – WP:NATURAL disambiguation is always preferred, when available. There is no reason to have two extra characters here, i.e. the parentheses (WP:CONCISE). – RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Corporate, political and special interest sponsored trolls"

I'm pretty sure the section titled, "Corporate, political and special interest sponsored trolls" should be deleted for irrelevancy. It doesn't even talk about trolling as it's defined in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.185.146 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia just founded a new category of trolling: Institutionalized trolling

Trolling as a part of politics is here. Look at the article and the discussion and please consider making it a part of the article.

http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830 https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/2ty5c6/head_of_russian_duma_calls_to_officialy_condemn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.201.197 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this should be mentioned in the article, but also trolling, netwar, electronic warfare or information warfare by other countries. Lyudmila Savchuk and Marat Burkkhard claims that they have worked for the russian Internet Research Agency, also known as Trolls from Olgino. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html . But Russia are not the only ones. For example, United states have been trolling on fundamentalistic muslim forums since the first decade of this century (can someone find sources on this?). See also Netware#Zapatista (U.S. founded Zapatista propaganda on Usenet News in the 90s). Mange01 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto trolls "debunking" science

Section #Corporate, political and special interest sponsored trolls contains the following sentence:

William Moar of Monsanto revealed in March 2015 that the corporate giant has an entire department dedicated to debunking science that did not agree with Monsanto's.

The reference provided (1) puts the word "debunking" in quotation marks. Leaving out the quotation marks completely falsifies the meaning.

Please correct the sentence accordingly:

William Moar of Monsanto revealed in March 2015 that the corporate giant has an entire department dedicated to "debunking" science that did not agree with Monsanto's.

(Also, while you're at it, there's also a spacing error: There's a space between the reference and the sentence's period, as with all of the references in that section. Please correct.)

Thank you, 89.0.232.210 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Have actually removed that sentence as a blog post does not constitute WP:RS. Even if this were true, this would not be a good example of internet trolling. Cannolis (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

what exactly is an incorrect use of the term?

As an inherently subjective slang term, how can there be correct and incorrect usage of that term? to claim that persons of one intent are incorrectly labelled while others are, when intent itself is subjective, is absurd and seriously POV.

That is, the article seems to say that despite the term being subjective, ill defined slang, there is still correct and incorrect usage of it somehow. That's incoherent. Obviously it is correct or acceptable to someone, and incorrect or unacceptable to someone else, and that doesn't make it correct or incorrect in NPOV terms.

With CNN referring to a "Troll Age" [1], a term they seemingly got from wikis that discuss contentious topics [2], isn't it about to time remove all this POV language that assumes that there are any "correct" definitions?

Quoting an old archive [3]:

Each and every attempt to define an Internet troll as anything other than "an ordinary user who said something I didn't believe or did something I didn't like" has failed.

Unfortunately just because Jimmy Wales uses a term as if it has a real meaning like in this picture doesn't mean that it has a real or "correct" meaning in the NPOV sense in a Wikipedia article. It doesn't. So this language needs a rewrite or the article needs a POV tag.

Answer post

I'm actually old enough to remember the origin of the term (it is, in fact, derived from the fishing term, meaning, "to cast a wide net." The "mythical, cavelike being" derivation came into play shortly afterwards, as a clever play on words - "don't feed the trolls." Although I can see the reason for the confusion, as it's more than likely that whoever coined the term did so because of both definitions.)

But that out of the way, language exists to communicate. There's no such thing as a word with a "subjective" definition, because any such word would be rendered completely meaningless and communication built around the word would break down. In short, if there isn't a definitive, agreed-upon definition... then there should be, and this is one of the best places to establish it.

The original (and still commonly-held) meaning of the term, "Troll" is as follows:

v. To post something online, not out of personal conviction or belief, but rather with the sole aim of provoking reactions from others.

n. A person who trolls.

Under that definition, there are several types of activity that qualify as "trolling" (some more malicious and easily-recognizable than others) but the one thing they all have in common, is that there is not actually any genuine belief or emotional investment, on the trolls' part, behind what they are saying (some hide this fact better than others). This is actually the point: they do it for the "joy" of getting others to invest their emotions or arguments in them, without actually risking any emotional investment or energy of conviction of their own, which gives them a sort of power over others. --Katerine459 (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Add image

Please add an image eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trikk.jpg, to illustrate the paragraph

"The "trollface" is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture."


QuentinUK (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated that image on Commons for deletion, since it is a copyright violation. The original author of the "trollface"/"coolface", Whynne, has stated that he has no intention to ever release it under a free license such as Creative Commons or GFDL. As the original creator, Whynne reserves all rights to the "trollface", including the ability to financially profit from it, and hence this image is protected under United States copyright law. The face is also registered within the United States Copyright Office as No. VAu001035955, owned by "Carlos Marcio Ramirez (pseud. Whynne)", and there has been a history of DMCA takedown notices regarding the face. Based on Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NFCC, we cannot use this image within the article, as it does not meet any of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, free as in libre (freedom) and not merely gratis (free beer). --benlisquareT•C•E 11:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if he can prove he was the original author (which is EXTREMELY doubtful), the idea that it warrants any special protection at this point is utterly laughable. It's easily one of the most widely shared and repurposed images on the internet. When you post your own work to a site like 4chan you are waiving any possible claim to legal protection for it. If this person tried to sue everyone who used the image without securing permission and paying royalties, he would spend several thousand lifetimes in court. The suggestion that trollface.jpg must be protected like it's the Mona Lisa just shows how surreal Wikipedia can be with this bureaucratic posturing. Trilobright (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you have fully gotten the memo yet. This person has sucessfully taken various people to court because of unauthorised use of his image, and makes a huge sum of money from them. Whether or not your rights are wavered when you post an image on 4chan is completely irrelevant, given the reality of the legal actions he has taken against other companies. Your line of thinking is too optimistic; posting your art on 4chan doesn't automatically mean that you no longer have ownership of your work, based on how courts interpret United States copyright law, otherwise Whynne wouldn't be making this kind of money off royalties. If there has been any company under the sun who has put the "trollface" on a T-shirt, coffee mug, computer game or tapestry, you can rest assured that they've probably been hit by this guy. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet computer network and swimming pool are isomorphic as networks with specific keypoint properties

Troll (or computer as a device) creates user reaction using hook in network same as in "virtual swimming pool network". For prevention of influence of internet actions is useful to visit a swimming pool periodically (it is also "hook" action for beneficial effect): for prevention of a negative internet impact. RippleSax (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Complex Article for such a simple thing

I think that way too much effort was put into this. Everyone on the Internet probably knows what trolls are, and if they didn't, they surely wouldn't consult Wikipedia for it. Trolls can be defined as this: people who verbalize controversial subjects in the hope that they'll get attention or make people mad. Even this definition is overly complex. I feel like whoever wrote this was just trying to kill some time or something, because I really don't see why someone would put so much effort into something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoetor (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper Intent

It should read "normal discussion" rather than "on-topic discussion." But that is fine. What is not clear as to what these people are called in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It also fails to mention "Trollaxing" The fine art of taking a break from normal users and trolling other trolls whislt relaxing usually during a cigarette break or a teabreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.237.145 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Newsroom" reference in the Introduction

The Newsroom is mentioned in the introduction but the is mentioned in the same sense in United States subsection of the Media coverage and controversy section. Should the reference in the introduction be deleted? --Drake77779 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drake77779: I deleted them, they are non-controversial and redundant per WP:CITELEAD. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Meta-Trolling

A registered user could assist in my humorous attempt at editing this page anonymously from a Canadian Government IP address. It would however not succeed in trolling the twitter account @gccaedits which is A bot that tweets anonymous Wikipedia edits that are made from Canadian Government IP addresses.

198.103.221.52 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Anonymous user.

> Early non-Internet related slang use of trolling for actions deliberately performed to provoke a reaction can be found in the military: by 1972 the term trolling for MiGs was documented in use by US Navy pilots in Vietnam.

I'm pretty sure trolling in this sense was directly related to the fishing-based term. The jets in question were the bait, flying through the sky in hopes of drawing out MiGS much as lures were used to draw out fish. I don't think this was a precursor to the Internet-based definition of the word. The Dharmatist (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

> In modern English usage, trolling may describe the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat[20]

I would alter this description to make clearer how well the Internet meaning fits it. The fishing technique "trolling" is done to investigate whether a deep hole in a waterway, which you cannot see down into, has any active fish in it. You put a baited hook (or several) on long line(s), drag it slowly through the hole, and then pull up the bait and see if it has been nibbled on. If it has, you stay and fish in the hole; if it's untouched, you try somewhere else. John David Galt (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the "Colossal Cave Adventure" text game, from about 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure : At some point, the adventurer gets to a bridge over a chasm, and there's a sign, "Stop! Pay Troll!". Adventurer cannot cross until he hands over a treasure. 67.5.237.157 (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The Usage section contains a paragraph which is plagiarized on top of being excessively silly. It should be removed. 98.124.53.177 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

Done KieranTribe 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

In the examples section of the article, I would like to propose the addition of sock puppetry as a specific trolling methodology, domain of thought and operation. Trolling and sock puppetry indeed have complementary features, and the terms are mostly used reversibly, as exemplified by this article. In providing a "definitive" (i.e. tentative) definition of sock puppetry on the trolling Wikipedia page, I hope to clarify any misgivings as to the former -- its area of operation being assuredly more politically and ideologically driven than that of the average troll.

This terminological clarification should help resolve what sock puppet agency wishes to specifically accomplish by borrowing from the troll's toolbox. See, for instance: https://philesofculture.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/culture-jamming-and-the-lulz-from-subcultural-trolls-to-propaganda-machines/, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/china%E2%80%99s-paid-trolls-meet-50-cent-party, where sock puppetry is implied but left unnamed.

Therefore, the proposed addition would take the following form: in the Corporate, political, and special interest sponsored trolls section, please change "Teams of sponsored trolls swarm a site to overwhelm any honest discourse and denigrate any who disagree with them." to "Teams of sponsored trolls, sometimes referred to as sockpuppet armies[1][2], swarm a site to overwhelm any honest discourse and denigrate any who disagree with them." Sockpuppetdude (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this is a WP:COI? ;) KieranTribe 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Elsner, K. "China Uses an Army of Sockpuppets to Control Public Opinion – and the US Will Too". Liberty Voice. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
  2. ^ Owens, Simon. "The battle to destroy Wikepedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 27 June 2016.

Origin and etymology

I limited my edits to date to adding an on-point Usenet reference to support a section of the text and moving another Usenet reference to the portion of the text that it directly supports. I don't see any reason to expand the section itself, but others may disagree. I think the talk page is an appropriate place for me to point at some additional resources I found that others may use if they disagree with me and believe the section should be expanded.

Here are some observations from alt.folklore.urban in the 1990-1992 period that can be replicated easily by anyone who chooses to do so. (Text searches on Internet archives are very easy to do):
1) It is clear that the behavior in question (what came to be called "trolling for newbies") was associated with fishing metaphors including "baited hooks" through this period. For example, see the following posts from 1991:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/xd5abf4bhiY/OyIxuf-rozoJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/_FhKdGxG6Rs/9JM5B4gPtu8J
2) There are several mentions of trolls in alt.folklore.urban through the period from 1990 until October 8, 1992, but they are either references to Norwegian folklore (with humorous comparisons to one poster's husband), or a reference to another poster's Usenet nickname. For example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/sD_W1Q8Wi0o/AxP7a215UGsJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/MOX8D7nWTmA/O6YBzwdTADoJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/j0UHsLN0qV8/a42QGFqEW-EJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/wxpg6P27R2U/zdhWughzjLwJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/HHoubwmlVhE/SNMLtyuBo80J
In my opinion, these are not germane to this topic, but others may disagree, and they will show up in text searches of the newsgroup's archives for the period in question.
3) The first mention of "trolling for newbies" in the sense outlined in the text of the current "Origin and etymology" section is found in this post from October 2, 1992, though there is continuity with the fishing metaphors (like those mentioned in #1 above).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/E26iaSme1t0/mnZfdqUeM9oJ
Additional posts from October 9:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/iNal2CeYkSw/7Mwdly7upPkJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.folklore.urban/9gXNdotYPVc/_qZCIXYd734J
LuckyFlamingo (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about content of "Corporate, political, and special interest sponsored trolls" section.

I would like to ask that an example of Astroturfing in this section be reconsidered.

In the first paragraph, after a description of Astroturfing by Sharyl Attkison, the following sentences were provided as an example, "A 2012 Pew Center on the States presentation on Effective Messaging included two examples of social media posts by a recently launched "rapid response team" dedicated to promoting fluoridation of community water supplies. That same presentation also emphasized changing the topic of conversation as a winning strategy."

According to Sharyl Attkisson's TED Talk, "Astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads, and Letters to the Editor, or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of astroturf is to try to give an impression there's widespread support *for or against* an agenda when there's not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion, by making you feel as if you're an outlier when you're not."

There is nothing in Sharyl Attkisson's description of "Astroturf" that can be applied to the fluoridation rapid response team (RTT).

The fluoridation RRT was formed entirely by volunteers to try and counter the unchecked avalanche of anti-fluoridation propaganda that was posted - mostly unanswered - on any news article, letter to the editor or comment section that mentioned the words fluoride or fluoridation.

Members of the RRT did not disguise themselves in an attempt to fool anyone into believing there was a false grassroots pro-fluoridation movement. They always addressed specific disingenuous (mostly unsupported) claims made by the fluoridation opponents with specific citations of published documents.

If, "The whole point of astroturf is to try to give an impression there's widespread support *for or against* an agenda when there's not." then the RTT can't possibly be an example of astoturf. The scientific consensus continues to support fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure after 70 years and thousands of studies, over 100 national and international health and scientific organizations publically recognize the health benefit of fluoridation for preventing dental decay, and there are no such organizations I am aware of that support the anti-fluoridation agenda. The Fluoride Action Network has collected about 5,000 signatures on their "Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation" page. That is a small fraction of the medical, dental, scientific and environmental professionals in the world and would hardly constitute widespread support of the anti-F agenda. Vocal, yes -- widespread, no. http://ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium http://Ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/ fluoridealert(dot)org/researchers/professionals-statement/ - blocked

The fluoridation RTT does not try and manipulate anyone into changing their opinion by making them feel as though they are an outlier, they simply counter anti-F propaganda.

The anti-F groups fit Sharyl Attkisson's description of Astroturf far better than the fluoridation RTT. Read the websites:

fluoridealert(dot)org/ - blocked

https://www.facebook.com/New-York-State-Coalition-Opposed-to-Fluoridation-Inc-252199261811/

www(dot)nofluoride(dot)com/ - blocked

http://australianfluorideaction.com/

http://fluoridefree.org.nz/

http:// newstarget.com/2016-07-28-you-have-been-lied-to-about-fluoride.html The safety and “benefits” of fluoride are indeed just a massive lie. Supposedly, it helps prevent tooth decay. But did you know before fluoride was added to the water supply, it was used as rat poison?

Search Google or Bing News for fluoride or fluoridation and see whether fluoridation supporters or opponents fit the definition of astroturf.

https://www.google.com/#q=fluoride&tbm=nws

https://www.google.com/#q=fluoridation&tbm=nws

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=fluoride

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=fluoridation

I am not sure how this process of requesting a change works.

Please contact me if additional information is needed.

Randy Johnson randy@cyber-nook.com

R2Johnson (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2016

The definition is wrong, it is enabling this behavior. The act of trolling is when someone is not intelligent enough to have a conversation on topic and results to random things they have seen online in order to seem superior. Very pathetic and a complete waste of time reading anything posted by someone who is trying or claiming to troll. If the definition was to reflect this fact in the actual negative light it is we would see less of this type of behavior. Therealdestroyer (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)  Not done You need to make an actual request to have something in the article changed, not jst make random observations- however insightful they may be. Muffled Pocketed 13:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"International journal of internet trolling and online participation"

There is an "International journal of internet trolling and online participation". Worth a mention? The editor of the journal has had COI issues on Wikipedia, at WP:COIN#Character_theory_.28media.29 but the journal is real. Take a look. John Nagle (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Stuff like that should only be mentioned if independent reliable sources have given it serious acknowledgement. There are a lot of websites with commentary on trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition is very ambiguous

Currently is says 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 (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The part before the first comma is a problem. "sowing discord" can't be called trolling: what if this is a controversial topic, and people are, say 70/30% split? So this automatically makes 30% trolls, because they will "upset" 70% by just expressing their legitimate opinion. This doesn't make sense. Also how is "starting argument" appropriate? Ex. one of these 30% of participants says something that he truly believes, and others will react in a fashion of a vehement disagreement. So this original poster will automatically become a troll, because the argument started from his OP. This also doesn't make sense.

Definition should say Troll is a person who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) primarily with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Yurivict (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, because, in your example, the 30% are not acting with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Their intent is to make relevant points. N4m3 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Intent is not operational, that is, there is no reliable test of intent, not even asking someone what their intent is, nor asking experts in psychotherapy what their intent is. So you are claiming there can be a correct versus incorrect way to use a subjective slang term. That is wrong. See section on correct vs. incorrect use of term below, the example above is one of many errors in this article that make it badly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Trolls intend to irritate, and they can get others to respond with attacks on the real or imagined race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual identity of users. Trolls expect people to defend themselves -- but incompetently. It is easy for someone trolled to assume that someone making base charges against others can be shamed on something like Holocaust denial, but the troll usually has the choice of abandoning the effort.Pbrower2a (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text for lead instead of that Newsroom crap. Who cares about Newsroom?

"After Donald Trump's election as U.S. president, while hosting Saturday Night Live, Dave Chapelle said "America has done it. We’ve actually elected an internet troll as our president.”[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.194.73 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/arts/television/dave-chappelle-saturday-night-live.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Concern troll NPOV

The "concern troll" section has multiple examples, all examples of alleged American right concern-trolling of the left. That seems rather parochial, given that this happens outside of the right, outside of politics (occasionally), and outside of America. (In fact, I'm not sure that I'd heard of a right-left example prior to reading this article.) I don't want to singlehandedly rewrite a section of a protect article, though, so I'd like some feedback on this. Calbaer (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think this may not be to NPOV standards, however, it is an example and may be able to stay. RES2773 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)RES2773
As a person who was actually trolled by Bass's staffer I haven't edited and won't edit the article, but I'm happy to explain why that example is probably here. In that case the trolling became a major campaign issue, generating many national press articles, coming up in the debates, and hurting Bass in the polls. It was covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, TV News, CNN, the Associated Press and many other outlets. Coming in 2006, it probably also marks the first time the general public was exposed to the practice of concern-trolling. It is also the first known example of someone of import being fired for concern-trolling. So I think if we're talking about the genesis and history of the term, it belongs here. I agree that this is a practice that spans both left and right, and it would be a better article if someone could complement the Bass example with a example of similar prominence with similar ramifications of someone concern-trolling someone on the right. Another measure might be to bulk up the references on the incident, this cites AP and WMUR but there were other high profile references that could be sourced to show its prominence more clearly. The fact that Furtado was fired for it could also be added to more clearly show its historical significance. --Michaelacaulfield (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It can be made more neutral by removing the last sentence:"Hodes eventually won the election." This appears like gloating that the troll got his comeuppance, and is not needed. Supporting or being against trolling is not required to explain what its practice involves. QuentinUK (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@QuentinUK: I do not think that it looks "like gloating that the troll got his comeuppance"; I think it looks like a fact about the election outcome. I think the political trolling by the Bass staffer is comparable to other campaign techniques, e.g. asking questions on a radio call-in show or writing an op-ed without disclosing a link to a political opponent – its just different technology used to achieve the same goal. I think the section could be improved with content like Michaelacaulfield describes above or a study (in a journal or book) about how effective it was in that campaign or how effective it is currently. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It does seem a bit partisan. Perhaps we should add a few more examples to balance it a little. TheDracologist (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The section doesn't even reflect the actual origins of the phrase, it should be redone completely. Especially since the phrase was originally used to against left leaning folk, but it exclusively uses examples against conservatives.

Status? - request that an example of Astroturfing in this section be reconsidered

Is there actually any way to generate a discussion about the example in the "Corporate, political, and special interest sponsored trolls" that disingenuously describes the "rapid response team" dedicated to promoting fluoridation of community water supplies as a team of sponsored trolls, sometimes referred to as sockpuppet armies, that swarms a site to overwhelm any honest discourse and denigrate any who disagree with them.

As I described in my previous post, the designation of "trolls" and "sockpuppet armies" applies to the action of fluoridation opponents rather than to those who attempt to provide the evidence that supports the scientific consensus.

Who is responsible for posting and reviewing this content? I have seen nothing in this discussion session to indicate that anyone is reviewing this comment/request.

I can be contacted at randy@cyber-nook.com if further discussion is necessary. 

  Randy JohnsonR2Johnson (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Chinese explaination of trolling is merely Taiwan speaking, NOT AT ALL USED by most native Chinese speakers in Chinese Mainland.

Wikiuser1532 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Shitposting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to merge. Those favoring merge have agreed that the topic is separate, but possibly too similar for separate articles. Those against merge have presented reasons that the topics are independently notable, there is no consensus, defaulting to retention of separate articles. Valoem talk contrib 01:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Same thing. "Shitposting" is a synonym for "trolling". I would prefer {{wi}}{{subst:longcomment}} to be posted on Shitposting instead of #REDIRECT [[Internet troll]] if this succeeds. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Literally no reason to have the shitposting article when they are the same thing. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 09:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Shitposting is not the same thing as trolling. Shitposting is posting a series of poor-quality posts, intending people who "get the joke" to join in, whereas trolling is likewise posting a series of poor-quality posts, but with the intent of confusing people who do not "get the joke". While the acts themselves are similar, they are completely different when the intent is considered. For example, offering emotional support and hurling insults could both be portrayed as "saying impactful words to someone in an effort to affect their emotions in a significant manner", but the primary distinction is that one of these is meant to affect the person in a positive manner, and the other in a negative manner. The same distinction applies here. BearGlyph (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge; the shitposting article could use some more explanation of what it actually is, but based on the sources given that actually describe it, it seems like a subset of trolling. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Although shitposting isn't exactly a synonym for trolling, it is similar. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I gotta agree with Bear here; shitpostimg and trolling are two totally different things. Anybody who's heard of Reddit or 4chan knows that. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - See this Reddit discussion that explains the differences between shitposting and trolling. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as very similar. This article currently fails WP:DICDEF anyway. 110.147.138.246 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
They aren't actually very similar at all. A shitpost is a low quality post, whereas a troll purposely tries to ruin things. All trolls are shitposters, but not all shitposters are trolls. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The shitposting article talks about content of "trollishly poor quality" being a "legitimate political technique" and a "deliberate provocation" which is "in some cases intended to derail discussions or otherwise make the site unusable to its regular visitors". If there's a non-troll purpose to shitposting, the article doesn't say what it is. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge Shitposting is often used as a type of trolling. No reason not to merge. Kosmosi (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • speedy delete Wikipedia isn't a compendium of every neologism to have ever existed, especially ones of little impact or notability. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 17:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Shitposting is often used as a type of trolling but not always. It can also be used to derail conversations, to make websites unusable, to disrupt communications and progress among other things: it doesn't have to be "trolling". Imo all the merge votes were too quick and aren't well thought through. --Fixuture (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This internet troll article defines trolling as "posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community [...] with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion", which would seem to entirely cover your "also" here. --McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree Shitposting isn't necessarily the same as trolling, you would know very well if you browse 4chan, and expand the article on shitposting FallRiverTyler (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree I will continue to disagree until both articles read similarly. Right now one is limited to posting to produce a emotional response, for self gratification, while the other could include floods of duplicate posts for financial gain. I also disagree with the reasons given in favour of the merge mentioned above. Because one might involve the other they should be merged? I hope those who voiced those opinions will support swimming merging with snorkeling. Clearly snorkeling may involve swimming. We can throw scuba diving and drowning in later.108.175.227.151 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Just because they both happen on the internet, doesn't make them the same thing. A shitpost can be something as basic as a really awful pun about the forum/topic subject. Doesn't make the person a troll. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced since 2012

"Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls"."

While this sounds perfectly plausible, there appears to be no source whatsoever to support it. This sentence has actually had a "citation needed" tag sitting in it for five years now, commented as follows:

"It is commonly said to be the most effective way, but are there any studies, or only anecdotes?"

Are there? If not, this is original research or possibly a guidebook for how to deal with trolls. Neither one belongs in a Wikipedia article. And after five years, this should really be removed if nobody has come up with reliable sources by now. Be welcome to put it back in with proper sources. --93.212.229.181 (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This book can probably help you clean up the article: [4]. --Jayron32 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't do any cleaning up here at all. The article is protected.
I am actually a bit surprised about this book turning up within seconds of my post, considering this tag has been sitting in there for a total of five years... --93.212.229.181 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If you registered an account, there's nothing to stop you from fixing it. --Jayron32 13:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither has anything been stopping you from fixing it, since you apparently knew of this book's existence.
And the question if I want or need to register an account, and why or why not, is not a matter of discussion on this talk page. --93.212.229.181 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know of the book's existence. I saw you ask this question, and I did a Google search to find it. Wikipedia works only because people who want to see better articles do the work to fix them. If you want to see this article improved, you're in the best position to fix it. Demanding that others do things you could do yourself isn't how this works. You don't have to fix it, of course, but then you lose all right to complain that it isn't fixed. I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other myself, the statement as it is written now doesn't really bother me. If it bothers you, you can fix it. --Jayron32 16:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

The link to "cybermentors.org.uk" should be removed as it appears to point to a new website now and has no relation to cyber bullying support 82.24.248.210 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done — IVORK Discuss 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Some Facebook page moderators don't tolerate the disruptive and/or of a incendiary nature of vile, hateful, profane, and/or insulting comments that contribute nothing to the conversations about the topic. The moderators and many Facebook page participants have a low opinion of these 'trolls.' Often they will block those identities from further discussions of their Facebook pages to maintain what the moderator feels is civil discussion of contentious topics. One moderator calls internet trolls poleicists. The moderator is singer, songwriter and author, Ms. Janis Ian, and she defined a poleicist in her Godzilla Haiku #1,113 as: "A polemicist? That's just a two dollar word for a ten cent troll."[1] RiHenSullJr (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ian, Janis (June 2, 2017: 0736 CDT) "Godzilla Haiku 1,113" retrieved from: https://www.facebook.com/@janisianpage on June 2, 2017
I am not sure what you want changed in the article. If you really are asking for a change please follow these directions: "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". ~ GB fan 13:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Does trolling require intent?

I have been called a troll on some internet forums because my personality and opinions are at direct odds with some communities at large. However my posts are not made with the intention of riling anyone up. So I want to make sure but does trolling require malicious intent? Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Internet troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Troll Image

I suggest for experienced wiki users to add the well known troll image to this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.48.194 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Chuu (厨) is used to refer to trolls (noun), originating from a pun on the homophones chuubou (中坊, middle-school student) and chuubou (厨房, kitchen knife). "厨とは (チュウとは) [単語記事] - ニコニコ大百科" (in Japanese). Straylemon (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (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. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Definition

I thought trolls were also the ones that seek attention from other users, so they can provoke them even more. 213.149.61.25 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is generally weak, but the definition part may be one of the weakest aspects. I think it should actually be regarded as a multidimensional concept, and some trolls may score highly in some dimensions rather than others. Hostility, intellectual dishonesty, and rudeness do seem to be important aspects of most trolls. I actually wish the article addressed the problems more clearly (where I think the main problem is how much of other people's time they waste) and linked to solutions (where I think the best one would be the display of earned public reputation to allow better filtering). Having said that, the article mostly needs links to outside sources to be improved, and I can't point to much... Shanen (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Internet troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


I plan to add to this article, information on racial trolling, societal trolling, online trust, and theoretical perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitlin.hurley (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Concern trolling and the Tone fallacy

It's really surprising that there is no mention of the Tone fallacy in the Concern Trolling section. Concern trolling is a classic example of the tone fallacy when it is used to evade the point a person is making (the content) by complaining about its presentation/packaging. The section also appears to negate that definition of concern trolling, in favor of astroturfing. Classic concern trolling is hardly uncommon. It is one of the more common tactics used in Internet forums, especially be "established senior members" who masquerade as seasoned voices of reason but who are often narcissists whose narcissism expresses itself in narrow-minded rejection of new ideas. The notion that veteran members of forums are not the trolls is surprisingly common. The tech site techpowerup, for instance, cites an old version of this article to suggest that forum trolls aren't longstanding members but are, instead, casual "few posts" interlopers. In my long and fairly broad Internet experience, which has involved many forums, I have seen many examples of trolling from veteran posters. Cliques tend to be dominant in forums and with those comes trolling. Concern trolling is typically one of the milder forms of the cliquish defense. "I see that you are new here. Here is what you should know. (We are in charge and define the truth, not reality.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.63 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Extremists anyone? 112.201.8.104 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I can't understand the opening sentence/definition of a troll. To me, it reads like nonsense. I came to the article hoping to learn what a "troll" means but this did not help. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on what does not make sense? The opening seems fine to me. It of course gives definition of the subject:

...A troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

So how is this not meaningful? – Ammarpad (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

First section under United States

First off, who's "Phillips", and how has the grammar in this section managed to escape scrutiny? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Phillips" appears to be the person who wrote whatever it's citing. Did you fix the grammar errors? The only one I found was incorrect capitalization of the word "America". BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"AOLamer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AOLamer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#AOLamer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"DFTT" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect DFTT. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#DFTT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Driveby Trolling" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Driveby Trolling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Driveby Trolling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trolling Trolls Trolling" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trolling Trolls Trolling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Trolling Trolls Trolling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Coolface" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coolface. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Coolface until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Troll Dad" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Troll Dad. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Troll Dad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

I suggest the intro para last sentence is slightly changed. The proposed addition is shown in [ ]. Feel free to edit into proper English. This is my first proposed wiki edit.

...' This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process or [with the intent of lowering the share price of a company by causing disruption and negative sentiment on stock discussion bulletin boards.] Wikiuser7777777 (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiuser7777777:  Not done I’m afraid your proposal is particularly specific to a single situation (sounds like trolls participating in WallStreetBets specifically). This article is about trolls in general, therefore the description should remain at a similarly general level. Ferkjl (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

82.4.93.106 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

v;k.

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The sense of "ugly dwarf or giant"

The old Norse word should be mentioned, at most, only briefly to dismiss it as irrelevant. It doesn't need a paragraph of confusing WP:OR ("The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales") with a few weak references to this definition of the word and a cite for article on howtogeek.com. The latter appears to be just some random person's opinions. The whole paragraph could be dropped without losing anything of value. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the Corporate, political, and special-interest sponsored trolls section.

While corporate networking site LinkedIn is considered a platform of good taste and professionalism, companies searching for personal information by promoting jobs that were not real and fake accounts posting political messages has caught the company off guard.[1] WizardOfFox (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

^ "Political trolls are invading LinkedIn". Business Insider. November 7, 2018.

Adding Bibliography

Planning to add section about the impact on LikedIn, once considered free of Trolls. Schomer, A. (2018, November 7). Political trolls are invading LinkedIn . Retrieved from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/trolls-invade-linkedin-2018-11 WizardOfFox (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

While corporate networking site LinkedIn is considered a platform of good taste and professionalism, companies searching for personal information by promoting jobs that were not real and fake accounts posting political messages has caught the company off guard. WizardOfFox (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Political trolls are invading LinkedIn". Business Insider. November 7, 2018. "I've spoken to some of the world's worst trolls. Here's what can help keep your kids safe online". ABC Everyday. November 2019. WizardOfFox (talk)WizardOfFox (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Connection between children and trolls

Most parents remember the first time they used the internet. Our children, however, are digital natives and are comfortable online Children can easily access hateful online content on a wide variety of websites.WizardOfFox (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This passage doesn't seem relevant to trolling unless this is expanded into its own section. --35.20.142.65 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image glorifies vandalism

The lead image (File:Wikipedia vandalism.svg added 22 October 2019) is not appropriate as an encyclopedic article should not be promoting silly disruption by a passing IP (diff). If there is no suitable image, this should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.hurley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddiekeller.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurr81.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 27 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WizardOfFox. Peer reviewers: Pinkballoon25, Plswrk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kay mei.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Troll is a pejorative outside serious discourse, and isn't restricted to some random digital protocol.

The question is what to do about individuals who wish to discuss a subject to conclusion or no conclusion. Some may bring empirical evidence for consideration, and it is appreciated here. I know some in real life; they are just curious. How can you know this? How can you know so much? Etc. And they question everything, just as we Wikipedia editors do.

Furthermore, individuals may be informed/uninformed and/or very good at debate/well-spoken, this is adjudicated and wins debates in Universities all over the world and is well documented, though the well-informed hope their views stand the trial. This is not always the case. The opponent in debate is to be portrayed as a cartoon character? This is certainly looked down upon in debate, even though it's often used and "works" - especially if shared or with a public in attendance. Consensus-forming.

Perhaps there's some other pejorative term that could be put as title? -Though I would not support this in debate.

If there's no debate, Wikipedia poses as author of truth, which is very dangerous - open to far too easy intellectual attacks.

In summary, the article title supposes that more or less informed individuals can express views only across some digital protocol, which is certainly untrue.

I would support the removal of this article. It just sticks out; doesn't belong with the majority of articles.

Henrik Erlandsson 00:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)

I'm not really sure what your objection to this article is. I assume by "protocol" you mean "etiquette", as opposed to the technical sense such as network protocol? If so, then I think you think people calling others "trolls" is a bad idea? That's not a valid reason for deletion of a Wikipedia article; we're here to document the phenomenon, not to pass judgment on whether it's constructive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allison Wallace (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lvmcintire (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Communication Behaviors

The definition of Internet trolling has been examined within the context of communication research; however, there is no exact definition. This is due to the fact that trolling means different things to different people and online communities. Kiesler et al. and Siegel et al. have conducted early research that indicates and examines the “deindividualization in computer-mediated communication” (pp.549).[1] The sense of anonymity that the Internet provided for its users allows low self-awareness and the likelihood that individuals will act on the inhibited impulses.[2] Suler defines two types of disinhibition - toxic and benign disinhibition - that individuals reveal in online discussions.[3] Toxic disinhibition refers to characteristics of rude language, anger, and harsh criticism.[4] According to Hardaker, the common characteristic of the various definitions of trolling is “the posting of incendiary comments with the intent of provoking others into conflict” (pp. 9).[5] Brott provides a list of behaviors that he deems positive in relation to communication behaviors and styles.[6] Some of these include: “Affirming the feelings and needs of others, compromising, negotiating, helping others succeed, expressing respect for values and opinions of others, and talking positively and constructively” (pp. 1).[7] Following these characteristics of positive communication styles, trolling goes against all of them. Trolling is centered on the toller’s enjoyment of negative communication behaviors. Klempkaand & Stimson sought to understand “what behaviors are commonly identified as trolling?” (pp.12).[8] These communication characteristics included the use of sexist or homophobic language, mention of physical violence, poor grammar or profanity, and nonsensical and rude to individuals reading the comments.[9] All of these characteristics are consistent with what Brott[10] would deem poor communication behavior.

References

  1. ^ Binns, Amy (August 2012). "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!". Journalism Practice. 6 (4): 547–562. doi:10.1080/17512786.2011.648988.
  2. ^ Binns, Amy (August 2012). "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!". Journalism Practice. 6 (4): 547–562. doi:10.1080/17512786.2011.648988.
  3. ^ Suler, John (June 2005). "The online disinhibition effect". International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies. 2 (2): 184–188. doi:10.1002/aps.42.
  4. ^ Binns, Amy (August 2012). "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!". Journalism Practice. 6 (4): 547–562. doi:10.1080/17512786.2011.648988.
  5. ^ Hopkinson, Christopher (2013). "Trolling in Online Discussions: From Provocation to Community-building". Brno Studies in English. 39 (1): 5–25. doi:10.5817/BSE2013-1-1.
  6. ^ Brott, Rich. "Positive Communication Behaviors Or Styles" (PDF). www.richbrott.com. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  7. ^ Brott, Rich. "Positive Communication Behaviors Or Styles" (PDF). www.richbrott.com. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  8. ^ Klempka, Allison; Stimson, Arielle. "Anonymous Communication on the Internet and Trolling". Concordia University, St. Paul. Concordia University, St. Paul. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  9. ^ Klempka, Allison; Stimson, Arielle. "Anonymous Communication on the Internet and Trolling". Concordia University, St. Paul. Concordia University, St. Paul. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  10. ^ Brott, Rich. "Positive Communication Behaviors Or Styles" (PDF). www.richbrott.com. Retrieved 23 November 2015.

I would like to add to this comment and clarify what I think it has to do with the encyclopedia. There has been an evolution of the usage of the word. Originally, the meaning of the word "troll" was someone who was doing the "posting inflammatory content to provoke a reaction" as the specific goal without other primary motives, i. e., the person trolling generaly didnt genuinely believe what they were writing or wrote in a hyperbolic way to provoke outrage (doin' it for the lulz). There was an internet subculture that evolved with this that was associated with 4chan users and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

However, as the word entered broader public usage, the "means many things to different people" definition became more appropriate. For example, the term "concern troll" doesnt have much relation to the original meaning, as a "concern troll" is someone who hides their true intention with a different argument. That definition does not require the "concern troll" for intended to provoke a reaction. The similarity is that what the person is posting is not their actual concern, but that only relates to the original definition in the sense of "people saying something on the internet that has a motive other then the surface motive". That would of course expand the meaning of troll far beyond the scope of the original usage. Another example of this evolution in usage is members of a partisan political view calling comments expressing an opposite view "(disliked group) troll". The word "Troll" has then a negative connotation and is perhaps suggesting that such people post to aggravate others of the different view, but it is not mean in that context that the beliefs the "troll" has stated are insincere. Personally I have seen this from "Left" US commenters to refer to other commentors as "Trump Trools" or "right wing trolls" This often occurs in comment sections of articles or forums that are percieved as "left", thus suggesting the motivation of the commenters is to come into an "enemy space" to provoke and irritate. But it is a very different from the original sense (i.e., going into a Jewish group and claiming the Holocaust never happeened when one doesnt believe that or doesnt care just to generate aggravted responses). For whatever reason I have not seen this phenomenon on right wing online spaces, but its possible that is because I see such comment sections less. Another example of a use of the word is to label commentators as not random civlian commentators but payed propaganda agents. For example, I have seen people referred to as "Putin trolls" who are suspected of being paid agents of the state of Russia to post propaganda comments. In this case, the motivation/presentation of the comment is fake, but the reason is often not simply to provoke a reaction. As far as what this all has to do with the article, I think the article should clarify the original meaning and use of the term and its evolution. I understand this woulf be a difficult thing to researcg and document, and given my limited expereince as an editor I would not know how to do it, but it would be possible and I think in terms of explaining the actual etymology and evolution of the term, such a sourced explanation would be helpful. I believe that is somewhat to the point the previous commenter was trying to make, and I am responding partially to the question below of what that person's statements have to do with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.109.34 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you and what do you propose to do in benefit of the encyclopedia? Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Troll_(slang)/Archive_3&oldid=1193400756"