User talk:MarkBernstein: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→On Seeing A Passing Troll: new section |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<hr> |
<hr> |
||
== On Seeing A Passing Troll == |
|||
Let is say, hypothetically, that I were to become aware of a bit of apparently-casual IP vandalism on a page that might relate to a topic from which I am topic-banned. The trolling in question is derogatory but not, strictly speaking, a clear violation of BLP and does not rise to the standard of requiring immediate oversight. It goes uncorrected for hours or days. |
|||
* Should I ignore it? To do so is, arguably, a violation of scholarly obligation or scientific ethics. |
|||
* Should I report it? How? Where? |
|||
* Should I discretely inform editors interested in the subject? |
|||
* Should I inform an uninvolved administrator? Who? How? |
|||
* Should I write about the problem in other media? |
|||
The latter will prove effective, but it also magnifies the troll’s enjoyment and their target’s annoyance. The world may not need additional articles about Wikipedia’s factual shortcomings, and in that long catalog this particular (hypothetical) instance might be weak tea. Is there a more efficacious and less damaging approach? [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein#top|talk]]) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:35, 27 April 2016
A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.
On Seeing A Passing Troll
Let is say, hypothetically, that I were to become aware of a bit of apparently-casual IP vandalism on a page that might relate to a topic from which I am topic-banned. The trolling in question is derogatory but not, strictly speaking, a clear violation of BLP and does not rise to the standard of requiring immediate oversight. It goes uncorrected for hours or days.
- Should I ignore it? To do so is, arguably, a violation of scholarly obligation or scientific ethics.
- Should I report it? How? Where?
- Should I discretely inform editors interested in the subject?
- Should I inform an uninvolved administrator? Who? How?
- Should I write about the problem in other media?
The latter will prove effective, but it also magnifies the troll’s enjoyment and their target’s annoyance. The world may not need additional articles about Wikipedia’s factual shortcomings, and in that long catalog this particular (hypothetical) instance might be weak tea. Is there a more efficacious and less damaging approach? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)