Wikipedia talk:Trolling poll
" Trolls and the problems they cause have had tangible negative consequences for Wikipedia - one look at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians can confirm thus." Reading the remarks, this doesn't really seem to be true. There are a variety of reaons that people give for leaving, trolls are never listed as one, whereas admins are. Mark Richards 22:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I have been thinking the exact same thing, but felt nervous expressing it (there is an air of witch hunt surrounding this whole discussion). Sam [Spade] 22:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I prefer groupthink. I certainly didn't withdraw from Wikipedia due to trolls - it was the behaviour of certain admins. Trolls are so easily ignorable... Secretlondon 22:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. I had no idea who or what a "troll" was (outside of tolkien and d&d anyhow) before coming here, but I noticed right away a great deal of excitement over user:michael and 142. While they clearly annoy admins, I got the impression that this was a self-fulfilling problem, where the more people talked about them and fussed over them, the more they came back. In some sick way they seemed to (want to) be a part of the community. I've certainly never heard of anyone leaving over their vandalism and foolishness. Did Theresa Knott leave over the rudeness of her two "alt medicine" sparring partners? Of course not. As rude as they were, they were only able to get as much attention and importance from her as she gave them. On the other hand, my best wiki-friend (user:optim) left over a problem w another respected editor. Incivility coming from admins is the biggest problem we have, IMO. In general, if wikipedia:No personal attacks, and wikipedia:civility were enforced on everyone (even Jimbo if he lost his mind for some reason and started cursing at us ;) we'd lose a whole lot less users. A quick reading of wikipedia:missing wikipedians should tell anyone that, even raul. Sam [Spade] 22:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that they feed off each other. Secretlondon 00:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, so I added a third question.Jrincayc 02:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Which version of Wikipedia:What is a troll are we voting on here? It is being edited as the poll is taking place, making it difficult to tally the results, since people are voting on different versions. Does anyone else see this as an issue? Mark Richards 20:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, but I'm cynical about any definition of a word like that. For me its like defining "a$$#ole" Sam [Spade] 20:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For sure, but I don't even know which version of the definition people voted for or against. Mark Richards 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I hear ya. Thats not the only obvious objection to these troll polls either. I wonder if anybody has bothered to read wikipedia:poll... *sigh* Sam [Spade] 21:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- now, btw, how you two feeling about the difficult behaviour policy at the moment? Erich 12:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, the poll was made way too soon, and breaks most of the rules, but it's not likely to reach consensus anyway. We need a poll poll. anthony (see warning)
Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Trolling poll page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Trolling poll" page.
