Talk:Internet troll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Troll (Internet))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Another use of T.R.O.L.L.[edit]

Does the information in another Wikipedia article fit anywhere in this article?

"In an attempt to demonstrate the perils of over-reliance on the internet as authority, the Mikkelsons assembled a series of fabricated urban folklore tales that they term "The Repository of Lost Legends".[1] The name was chosen for its acronym, T.R.O.L.L., a reference to the early 1990s definition of the word troll, meaning an Internet prank, of which David Mikkelson was a prominent practitioner.[2]" -- ~~


  1. ^ "Urban Legends Reference Page: Lost Legends". Retrieved 9 June 2006.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Porter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Russia just founded a new category of trolling: Institutionalized trolling[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 . 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)

Early non-Internet related slang[edit]

> 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. : 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. (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2015[edit]

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 trollWP: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)

Internet Troll.png

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.

Definition is very ambiguous[edit]

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 (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)

"Corporate, political and special interest sponsored trolls"[edit]

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 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto trolls "debunking" science[edit]

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, (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Please add an image eg, 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). --benlisquareTCE 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. --benlisquareTCE 03:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Concern troll NPOV[edit]

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)

Communication Behaviors[edit]

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.


  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). Retrieved 23 November 2015. 
  7. ^ Brott, Rich. "Positive Communication Behaviors Or Styles" (PDF). 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). Retrieved 23 November 2015. 

Proper Intent[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Newsroom" reference in the Introduction[edit]

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)


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

Edit request[edit]

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

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


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

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016[edit]

Yes check.svg 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:,, 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)


  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[edit]

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:
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:
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).
Additional posts from October 9:
LuckyFlamingo (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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. 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

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

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

Please contact me if additional information is needed.

Randy Johnson

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2016[edit]

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) X mark.svg 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"[edit]

There is an "International journal of internet trolling and online participation"[4]]. 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)

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

"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 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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 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.[edit]

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

  1. ^