On Feb 10, 2004, at 1:53 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
One problem with bringing up a person's
pre-Wikipedia history is that
a
reformed troll is likely to be, shall we say, tact-impaired. Such a
person is *more* likely to be falsely accused of trolling (remembering
that trolling includes intent). On the other hand, this history can
greatly help arbitrators to decide how to deal with a user. Many
people are simply bad at garnering sympathy for their point; it's a
skill not everyone has. Simply accusing such people of trolling is
likely to make matters worse and make the arbitrators' job harder.
The difference between being a troll or "tact-impaired" is minor
enough that for most practical purposes it isn't worth considering.
There is a major difference which I failed to bring up explicitly if
the first post. Obviously inflammatory content is inflammatory,
intended or not. But the second half of arbitration is resolution.
Arbitrators are granted a certain amount of authority by Jimbo for the
purposes of resolution. If a person really is a troll, they should be
treated differently than someone who has suffered from a lapse in tact.
It should (may) be possible to reason with the latter; reasoning with
the former is a complete waste of time.
In short, I think that off-Wikipedia evidence can be very useful to
arbitrators in deciding how to work with a disputant.
Peter
-- ---<>--- --
A house without walls cannot fall.
Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at
Wikipedia.org
-- ---<>--- --