Error

2 revisions of this difference (1670 and 13631) were not found.

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

---

Latest revision as of 22:36, 3 December 2004

Some misunderstand what a power network is. It is not a kind of unequal power relationship, it is the result of such relationships. If anyone has power-over anyone else. An anarchist should explain unequal power relationships in the context of power networks so as to explain that UPRs cannot exist without PNs ultimately forming.

Since the anarchist rejects most power networks s/he must also reject UPRs.

Sorry if this was not clear in the article itself but I thought it would be assumed, among anarchists.

It is certainly not the intent or idea here to claim that UPR=PN but rather that UPR->PN.

And the convention of redirecting is appropriate when one idea cannot be explained except in the context or categories of another. If UPR->PN inevitably, then UPR must be explained as a part of PN. What it *does* is what it is *for*. Is that agreed?

UPR!->PN inevitably. There are quite a few kinds of UPRs, not all of which are necessarily bad. See unequal power relationship for an explanation. Guanaco 00:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous proxy service

offer anonymous proxy service to users banned by Wales -- Just to ask is there any sense to do something even if we can? Isn't it better to develope some other GFDL access provider (Consumerium, Disinfopedia, Anarchopedia)? --Milos Rancic 00:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trolling

I see "troll" and "trolling" used on this page, and on other pages in Anarchopedia, to describe something which is apparently viewed as a positive force. I find this strange. I've been hanging around Usenet for a number of years now and when it's not just used as a generic (meaningless) insult, the word "trolling" is typically used for something that has little apparent value: Someone who is trolling, in general, is looking to start an argument and make people mad, with no intention of actually exchanging information. In other words, trolling appears to be a direct attempt at disrupting communication which hardly seems like a laudable goal.

That whole argument is stupid.

I disagree ;-) "Wrong" does not equal "stupid". And please note that I did use the word appears ... I can't know what is going on in someone else's head. I can certainly speculate, however. In any case I didn't post the argument in an effort to convince anybody of anything ... I did it in an effort to garner some replies that might shed a bit of light on the use of the word "troll" here. In that sense it seems to have been successful.

How could anyone possibly know the intent of someone else's contribution or the sincerity of their statements? Obviously anyone doing or saying anything that is even remotely controversial will be called a "troll" at some point in their interaction.

Is that really so obvious? Is it even true?

Every person with a different point of view is "trolling" from the point of view of those who share some common groupthink. It is as inevitable as white bigots eventually calling a black person a "nigger" regardless of their contributions. The only known effective response is to adopt the label as a point of pride, which is exactly what the political trolls have done on all large public wikis.

I admit I've got no experience in that arena. My knowledge of "trolls" and "trolling", such as it is, comes from Usenet. And I will grant you, as I think about it more, that the word "troll" is most heavily used by the usenet bullies who try to enforce their point of view on the whole group.

What "seems like a laudable goal" to you is obviously not what is important, what is important is destroying the power of power networks to inhibit anarchist discourse simply by calling it "trolling".

Again, however, I see "troll" and "trolling" used in a positive sense in the context of anarchopedia, and in particular in this article. So, I'd like to ask, what is the value of messages and actions which are directed at disrupting communication and triggering angry responses? Alternatively, if you don't feel that's what "trolling" is all about, then what do you mean by the term?

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS "DIRECTED AT DISRUPTING COMMUNICATION"

Do you mean I don't know the intent of the poster, or do you mean I don't know how to judge a string of words to decide if it enhances or degrades communication, or do you mean I don't know what the phrase means?

YOU HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHETHER TO RESPOND WITH REASON OR REACT WITH ANGER

Don't have much time to do either -- preparations for blowing this dump and moving to Quebec are consuming too much of it.

If you genuinely believe that your assessment of the value of something, alone, makes it "trolling" or not,

No, I don't. "valuable" and "in good faith" are certainly not synonymous. But I grant you, as I said, that the word is usually used that way, and perhaps that's the whole point. As far as I'm concerned, to the extent that the word comes from the verb "to troll" (for a fish) rather from the name of the creature who lives under a bridge and waylays travelers, it refers to the poster's intent. Intent can never be known precisely, and can usually be judged at all only after reading a substantial sequence of posts from the same person. To the extent that the word comes from the name for creatures that lurk under bridges it doesn't mean anything except "YOU BAD!" and the analogy with "nigger" is exact.

then you are a bigot arguing to give special status to your bigot's category of "troll". It is exactly morally equivalent to a white racist saying they do not wish to read anything by "niggers". If any contribution challenges their racist views, they will dismiss it as being "from a nigger" or a "nigger-loving" post, and will demand the power to censor it and ignore the contributor. This is exactly parallel to what has happened in every large public wiki that has accepted the negative use of the term "troll".

I have looked at the troll article which was added here recently but didn't find it highly englightening as regards this issue. But perhaps I need to read it again more carefully.

-- SAL, 11/18/04

Perhaps you simply need to cease to be stupid, Sal. This is an anarchist wiki not a sysop vandalism wiki - if you can't deal with trolls and trolling, you can't deal with anarchy either.

I'm not trying to "deal with" trolls, just understand them in this context, and as it happens the responses were helpful. If you can't deal with questions directed at understanding something, then you should be a Republican. --SAL 16:36, 3 Dec 2004 (CST)

• I am not troll but, I think I understand their postitions: A lot of admins all over the Internet like to use words "troll" and "trolling" for moral disqualification of their opponents. I am working on Internet from 1995 and I didn't find a lot of trolls from "official definition", but I found a lot of admins which: claim that someone is troll and make censorship at their mailing lists, forums, even IRC. So, I think that process from "official definition" to "trollish definition" was like this: (1) a lot of admins didn't want to hear some kind of truth because it hurted them; (2) some people liked to talk about "prohibited themes"; (3) admis denominated them as "trolls" and restricted access them; (4) when someone is permanentely called in some way, that name starts to be usual for that person. --Milos Rancic 19:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• So, it is important to understand changes between (1) someone who tries to bother other people without any sense and (2) someone who wants to say truth. As I saw, two (group of) trolls here are trolls in the second sense. And this is good. --Milos Rancic 19:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly right. Except that now what has happened is that so many people realize that there is absolutely no way to tell by HOW SOMEONE FEELS READING IT whether it is (1) or (2). For instance, is this troll IP being used now calling Sal stupid TO ANNOY HIM or TO DEFINE STUPID IN SOME SPECIFIC AND CAREFULLY SCOPED WAY?

On the Internet "stupid" is just a placeholder, used to fill in gaps where the user wanted to say more but couldn't think of a sufficiently cutting argument at that moment -- or, in some cases, it's just a habit of speech. Doesn't usually show anything about either the user or the target, in my experience -- either one, or neither, or both could be "stupid" in the literal sense of the word. -- SAL again

You cannot know unless you know a lot more about the authors, and troll IPs shift around so you can only guess at who is writing what.

The positive use of the term is *exactly* like the use of "nigger" by black activists and "fag" by gay activists.