Talk:Slashdot trolling phenomena
Good article so far, but more than almost any other topic I think this one suffers from not situating the information within a particular context of time; for example, most of the types of troll posts given here are current as of middle of 2002, early 2003 and many will probably go out of fashion by the end of the year. I think it will be very useful, then, to postfix each example of the phenomenom with the date of its currency-e.g. "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" (2001) . Would also be good to add many important historical examples no longer in use (afore-mentioned AYBABTU, "IF I EVER MEET YOU... I WILL KICK YOUR ASS", pancake-eating Ninjas, etc.). --Jleybov
Can trolls please grow up? kthxbye
I don't know how you can say that 1-2-3-PROFIT is a troll. It's just a recurring joke and doesn't match any definition of trolling I've ever seen. The same could probably be said about Beowulf clusters and "In Soviet Russia," though to a lesser degree because unlike 1-2-3-PROFIT, they don't get routinely moderated up. But not everything that is consistently modded down is a troll. Most of the mods just seem to think that "In Soviet Russia" is a tired old joke that's not funny anymore, and some of the comment posters don't realise that yet. --Graue (not logged in because I forgot my !@# password again)
- It is, however, a recurring phenomenon of off-topic comments. -- Schnee 13:11, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- We could certainly split it out into more aggressive trolls, and more benign, recurring, off topic jokes - the two sections might make sense. 9 Sept 2003
- I did this - let me know what you think.
Plural title
Why is the plural used in the title of this article? Michael Hardy 23:38 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Because it's about Slashdot trolling phenomena: "*BSD is dying" is a Slashdot trolling phenomenon, page widening is a Slashdot trolling phenomenon, etcetera. Graue
It's a Wikipedia tradition that links to outside the Wikipedia should only be in the separate section "External Links". This is to make a clear distinction between Wikipedia content, for which we are responsible, and non-Wikipedia content. This same distinction is found in quality print encyclopedias. This article goes entirely against that tradition, and really must be revised to keep external links out of the body. Kricxjo 20:24, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I think this is fixed now?212.42.97.111 11:29, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the fact that this entry is one of the largest and most elaborate on the Wikipedia is, in fact, a kind of a Troll?
- Or at least, a kind of museum of trolling?
- I would say that it is explanation to many inside jokes that would require many hours of reading Slashdot in order to find funny (if, of course, you do find such things funny.) I appreciate that this article is on the Wikipedia. --Two Halves not on a pogo stick
- Good-good, I think it's great too ;) What do you think of the reorganization I did?
- Yes, I do. I created the article in the first place and the main thought I had in creating it was "How long will it be before this gets deleted?" Interestingly enough, it never was, but has instead (as I hoped) grown into an unruly behemoth strangely like its Slashdot counterparts. -- 212.229.115.84
- I'm glad, and happy to have helped it to be the strange and excentric creature it is.
That is just about enough bad things said about heroic m:trolls. <-- please read this to see the true meaning of trolling. Also consider joining the m:Legion of trolls. Thank you for your time neh neh neh...
How long do Slashdot links remain? Is there a danger that some of the older ones will disapear in the end? How do we deal with that?
- I think they're as permament as Slashdot is. CGS 10:12, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC).
"One Anonymous Coward used it on the day of John Ritter's death, saying 'I just heard on the radio that John Ritter died'."
Actually, it was Slashdot user orthogonal, not posting as an Anonymous Coward, and it began, "I just heard some sad news on talk radio", and followed the troll format. orthogonal 08:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re: 212.229.115.84 (Slight changes under "Stephen King is Dead".) You added 'similar to' to the Stephen King examples. My feeling is there is one canonical form of this troll. Or at least, it suffers if it departs from that form. While I'm not a troller myself (except for some uses of the "Stephen King" form myself for real celebrity deaths, mostly to see what the reaction would be), I think the humor in this troll comes from the intentional vagueness of the statement "I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon." The boiler-plate use of this vague generalization gives it the feel of a pompous but rather uniformed -- and itself boiler-plate -- TV-news style obituary by managing to say nothing in a verbose way. When real details or a real appraisal of the subject is offered, this aspect is lost. orthogonal 20:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I agree that there's a canonical form of the Stephen King troll, but the impression I gained from your text about it was that all Stephen King trolls followed your quoted form verbatim, when some, though similar, are not necessarily exactly the same. I'm sorry for misinterpreting this way, and will change the text to underline the fact that the text given is 'canonical' and not a totally strict format. -- 212.229.115.84 (20:38 12 Nov 2003 (UTC))
- Ah, my lack of clarity. No, of course, there's individual variance. In fact, I recall posting to Slashdot the canaonical form, and dressing down an Anonymous Coward who departed from it by adding far too much real detail. orthogonal 21:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)