Difference between revisions of "Orcs"

Revision as of 11:28, 24 April 2005

I hate to interfere with someone kind enough to quote me, but I fear my intent has gone astray. I coined the Tolkienesque term "orc" to describe not a weak troll or troll-fighter, but a trollish user with unusual qualities of cleverness, persistence, and flexibility. "Oog", above, is an example of a raptor.

Orcs may or may not oppose trolls; they do not troll as intensely as a common troll. An orc masquerades as a genuine user, and may even make an occasional substantial contribution. An orc may fight a troll, hoping to steal the mantle of a knight; but often merely plods along in a groupthink vein, playing to the crowd, gathering support by acting with the mob, and occasionally looking to see where the mob is going -- and getting there first. He hopes to build up a reserve of public trust based on his frequent appearances on the "right" side of battles against straw men. He may thus acquire cat's paws or sparewheels. This is the orc's "passive mode".

When the orc shifts gears into "active mode", he fastens upon some object -- usually another user, but perhaps a group of users or an abstract concept -- and attempts to eradicate him, them, or it. He is unusually persistent and flexible in his attacks. Unlike trolls who generally "ignore all rules" except the most clearly established (since "rules" are so easily manipulated by orcs themselves - see below), the orc treads the edge of the acceptable, attempting to drag his opponent to this unsafe battleground. A successful orc attack is completed when his victim, not the orc, finally crosses the line into sanctionable action. But absent this satisfaction, the orc persists until he exceeds community tolerance.

Another feature of the orc is his fascination with policy. He avoids substantive contribution and manipulates policy to his own ends. His flexibility is key. When stymied at one point, he goes to higher ground, looking for some policy that can be creatively twisted to support his vendetta. He fades in and out of active and passive modes, from direct attack to subversion of process. If he perceives a gray area, he pushes it as far as it will go; then he switches sides and pushes there, too, until nothing is left but a fine line between right and wrong.

The real danger of the orc is not that he destroys other users; users can be replaced. It is not that he vandalizes articles, policies, and tools; they can be rebuilt.

The orc, by playing constantly in the gray area between "okay" and "not okay", forces the community to resort ever more frequently to formal procedure, tribunal, and written, explicit policy. That might almost be a Good Thing, but a community founded on more or less anarchic principles maintains its integrity via meatball:SoftSecurity, which depends on common sense and a certain level of mutual trust. Orderly anarchy, as opposed to chaos, depends on community members working to avoid testing limits and provoking contention. By forcing the community, bit by bit, to adopt strict methods to exclude bad actions, the orc destroys orderly anarchy and replaces it with a slapped-together mess of improvisation -- ad-hocracy at its worst - which is easily manipulated by other orcs.

This destruction cannot be reverted. Once that mutual trust is destroyed, there is no way to regain it; once resort to authority replaces good common sense, it becomes the first resort in all cases. This social glue is precious and fragile, and the orc erodes it by his every act.

Thus the orc is the most dangerous of all troublesome users. [edited, was [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 00:27, 24 Apr 2005 (CDT)]

Another definition

In the metaphor of Wikipedia as an MMORPG, orcs are "irksome contributors" who are incapable of holding their own in debate and thus cannot achieve the status of trolls.

As English Wikipedia User Xiong puts it, "what distinguishes the orc is his lack of any real commitment to the positions which he advances." In their constant struggle to oppose trolls, orcs often resort to underhanded, unethical or destructive tactics.

"The result far outlasts whatever immediate destruction the orc causes. [] But there is a lasting effect, too: the atmosphere of contention itself, the contamination of the body politic, the precedents set for bad, ruthless, self-centered action. [] Substantive work on the project either grinds to a halt, or is abandoned to the care of second-raters." - English Wikipedia User Xiong

Many orcs climb the Wikipedia power structure by going after their most unpopular critics:

"[Name witheld] made his Wikipedia "career" by attacking those critics. Some of them were genuinely bad editors, and many Wikipedia users were relived to see them gone and willing to overlook the way [he] got rid of them, by means fair or foul. Because in many cases, [he] got rid of people by relentless, petty harassment, until the victim finally broke a Wikipedia rule in his frustration (usually the rule against personal attacks). [He] pretty much called anyone who questioned his tactics a "troll", and implied that arguing for due process was a "delaying tactic" only used by trolls. [] So it became politically highly costly to oppose [him].

"And those in the power structure were delighted to have [him] as their attack dog. Due process and fair treatment got thrown out the window. [W]hether or not his targets were real threats to the encyclopedia, they all questioned the power-structure.

"[U]nfortunately for Wikipedia, the free flow of information it relies on gets dammed up when dissent is removed, dismissed or derided without due process. While the majority of Wikipedians continue to diligently and honestly add to the encyclopedia, any viewpoint that seems at all threating to the reigning group-think is crushed []. Eventually, you'll have an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia that reports only the narrow viewpoints of its most zealous and intolerant members." English Wikipedia User Orthogonal

See also

• Young Jacobins