Recent Changes for "Troll/Talk" - Rochester Wiki

Troll/Talk

RachelBlumenthal — 2007-12-11T01:42:36Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 21:	Line 21:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 20:42:36'' [[nbsp]] True...a few days ago I was telling some of my lesser-into-computers friends about the trolls on rocwiki, and they looked at me like I was crazy :) --["RachelBlumenthal"]

badfish — 2007-12-11T01:41:15Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 17:	Line 17:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 20:41:15'' [[nbsp]] I think almost all "trolling" I can remember has fallen under those two situations. Your thoughts on that statement? + + In my opinion, I don't think Trolling is the best term to use in a top of the the page message as I think it is pretty unknown outside of the wiki community and geek culture. Don't misunderstand, it is appropriate in meaning, I think a more common term should be used for sake of widespread understanding. --["BadFish"]

RachelBlumenthal — 2007-12-11T01:30:27Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 15:	Line 15:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 20:30:27'' [[nbsp]] Hmmm...I do like the idea of separate macros for trolls/vandals vs. business shill, but you're right about the slippery slope possibility. This one seems reasonable, but maybe in the future we can draw the line if people start feeling the need to add ridiculous ones. --["RachelBlumenthal"]

badfish — 2007-12-11T01:17:31Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 20:17:31'' [[nbsp]] I am not sure if I would suggest a rewrite or an additional message. I would suggest one message specifically for situations like the Salad Etc./Northfield/Black and Blue/Boulder Coffee situations. + + Something along the lines of: + "Some comments on this page have been determined to be suspicious in nature by members of the RocWiki community. This situation is being investigated and may or may not result in deletion of some comments on this page." + + This would be a "business shill" macro I guess. Is this a slippery slope? Are we opening to the door to a host of other macros? What if someone wants a "I don't like what was written about me" macro or a "I think someone is lying on this page" macro? --["BadFish"]

rottenchester — 2007-12-11T01:07:48Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 6:	Line 6:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 20:07:48'' [[nbsp]] Good idea. --["RottenChester"]

RachelBlumenthal — 2007-12-11T00:57:31Z

Comment added.

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 4:	Line 4:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 19:57:31'' [[nbsp]] I think we should change the wording of the troll macro a bit...it focuses on negative comments, but in many instances, suspect comments are actually extremely positive, possibly from business owners or staff. Anyone object to a slight rewrite? --["RachelBlumenthal"]

RachelBlumenthal — 2007-12-11T00:57:27Z

deleting my comment--going to move it to actual comment section

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- I think we should change the wording of the troll macro a bit...it focuses on negative comments, but in many instances, suspect comments are actually extremely positive, possibly from business owners or staff. Anyone object to a slight rewrite? --["RachelBlumenthal"] -

badfish — 2007-12-11T00:54:29Z

Added comments box

Differences for Troll/Talk

RachelBlumenthal — 2007-12-11T00:45:59Z

added talk page and left a comment about rewording troll macro

Differences for Troll/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ This page is for discussing the contents of ["Troll"]. + + I think we should change the wording of the troll macro a bit...it focuses on negative comments, but in many instances, suspect comments are actually extremely positive, possibly from business owners or staff. Anyone object to a slight rewrite? --["RachelBlumenthal"]