I have a big confession to make!

[DaveR]

"I have been posting in various different forums, which have been selected to represent a wide cross-section of the different common-interest, geographical and socio-economic groups that exist in the form of online communities across the internet.

The contrasting responses I have encountered will be used in my analysis of what unites and separates these disparate groups, and what comparisons can be drawn with the nature of "real-life" communities."

How reliable is your analysis going to be when you have, by your own admission been trolling? The only thing you'll be in a position to do is compare reactions to postings by 'jrussell', which were understood by pretty much everybody to be wholly artificial. And as for the 'reveal' - at most it's a tiny bit disappointing to find out that 'jrussell' is not simply an eccentric troll, but rather a self-important idiot journo (not exactly a rare breed).

[edcam]

A journalist carrying out an unscientific "analysis" carried out under false/dishonest pretences? Surely not?!

[expat]

I used to think most journos was bad but they are not all the same. 'jrussel' if he exist is a bad example of the prefession

[Ladymuck]

sophiesofa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not really a sofa

You mean that...ahem...lovely sofa which sat outside your flat wasn't you? Well I am disappointed!

[jrussel]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I have been posting in various different forums,

> which have been selected to represent a wide

> cross-section of the different common-interest,

> geographical and socio-economic groups that exist

> in the form of online communities across the

> internet.

>

> The contrasting responses I have encountered will

> be used in my analysis of what unites and

> separates these disparate groups, and what

> comparisons can be drawn with the nature of

> "real-life" communities."

>

> How reliable is your analysis going to be when you

> have, by your own admission been trolling? The

> only thing you'll be in a position to do is

> compare reactions to postings by 'jrussell', which

> were understood by pretty much everybody to be

> wholly artificial. And as for the 'reveal' - at

> most it's a tiny bit disappointing to find out

> that 'jrussell' is not simply an eccentric troll,

> but rather a self-important idiot journo (not

> exactly a rare breed).

DaveR, the main focus of my piece will be the reaction of the online communities to the presence of a "troll" and there will additionally be some discussion on the "real life" equivalent of the internet troll.

The etiquette of how to respond to a troll varies quite significantly from forum to forum and it is not difficult (if you know what you are doing) to relate these differences to (for example) the differences in the socio-economic circumstances of the various forum posterships.

Having conducted interviews with people who spend little or no time on discussion boards, it has become quite apparent that the term "troll" is unfamiliar to them (other than the traditional fairy-tale meaning of course). Furthermore most are perplexed when it comes to understanding what exactly the internet troll does and why he does it.

There are many reasons why the act of "trolling" is more common online than in real life, some of them obvious but some of them rather less obvious. I can't go into them here prior to publication of my feature but they are interesting and have been identified with the help of some well-respected psychologists. In fact partially as a result of our conversations, an academic psychologist at a leading university is considering introducing a module to their undergraduate programme which looks specifically at these issues.

[sophiesofa]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sophiesofa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm not really a sofa

>

> You mean that...ahem...lovely sofa which sat

> outside your flat wasn't you? Well I am

> disappointed!

>:D<

[RosieH]

Oh my god, are you peer-reviewed in Nature?

[Ladymuck]

...ah ha! it was - wasn't it!

....LOL!

X-post - edited to say post in response to that rather unique sofa above

[Jah Lush]

jrussel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush, it's a shame that has been your

> experience. There are "bad eggs" in any profession

> of course, but is there really a higher proportion

> than average amongst journalists?

Yes, especially those who work on the tabloids

> In what role have you worked with them?

None of your business

[RosieH]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh my god, are you peer-reviewed in Nature?

I've just realised my mistake. The rather tabloid use of punctuation in the thread title would suggest otherwise.

Ach, all journalists aren't bad. I know some nice ones. Maybe it's someone from The Lady magazine - they've been branching out of late.

[Jah Lush]

Yes Rosie, no need for exclamation mark.

[*Bob*]

Russ, it will be interesting to see how you try to pad-out two paragraphs on The Bleeding Obvious so that it resembles something vaguely substantial.

My only advice: send a copy to your Mother - and spend the ?500 wisely.

I enjoyed the posts though.

[KidKruger]

JRussel baby will you tell us when you 'publish' your 'article' ?

Also, forgive me, what in heaven's name is a 'troll' ?

I just got my head around what a 'WUM' is. Is a 'troll' a kind of 'WUM' ?

Please just advise me, I don't need any grief !

[RosieH]

A troll is like a MILF, except it's a particularly hirsute DILF

[expat]

WUM Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny (Warsaw Medical University?

[Jah Lush]

Hey Kid, what's a WUM?

[Mick Mac]

jrussel Wrote:

>

> The etiquette of how to respond to a troll varies

> quite significantly from forum to forum and it is

> not difficult (if you know what you are doing) to

> relate these differences to (for example) the

> differences in the socio-economic circumstances of

> the various forum posterships.

>

LOL

Since you "know what you are doing" you could take this a step further - Maybe you could apply this crystal ball methodology to take the top 10 posters an give us your guess as to their their "socio-economic circumstances".

[DaveR]

"the main focus of my piece will be the reaction of the online communities to the presence of a "troll" and there will additionally be some discussion on the "real life" equivalent of the internet troll."

That's funny, I thought you said at the start:

"The contrasting responses I have encountered will be used in my analysis of what unites and separates these disparate groups, and what comparisons can be drawn with the nature of "real-life" communities"

So in fact, your analysis will be limited to how these 'disparate groups' react to trolls. It's quite narrow, isn't it? Was it worth the effort?

I have a theory (feel free to print it - who knows, an academic at a leading university may be interested). You undoubtedly think that your online persona is a wholly artificial construct, distinct from your own personality, views etc. I don't buy it - you are 'jrussell', subconsciously at least, even if the specific views/arguments expressed are not your own. Even the 'reveal' post still has a distinct 'jrussell' feel about it, and I'm not just talking about the prose style.

[Mick Mac]

jrussel will no doubt suggest that the online community reacts aggressively and defensivley to the revelation of the troll in their midst.

In fact its just a typical group reaction to someone proving themselves a complete t wat.

[jrussel]

Mick Mac:

When I talk about "socio-economic circumstances" I refer to a tendency across the membership of the discussion board. This is not judged on the basis of trying to second-guess what the circumstances of individual members are. It is judged on the basis of the predominant themes visible in discussions across the boards. As a crude example, there is a lot more discussion related to parenting on the EDF, compared to certain other boards. Another useful indicator is the nature of discussion about housing prices - whether for example it is discussed from the point of view of individual buyers and advice about that process, or as part of a discussion on a macro-economic level. Also, whether a fall in house prices tend mainly to be viewed as a positive or negative trend.

DaveR:

You are quite correct that an online persona can never be entirely independent from that of the "real person", subconsciously or otherwise. In fact a substantial portion of my work has involved looking at this very issue.

You describe my field of investigation as "quite narrow" - maybe, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to mined from that particular seam. By the way I'm not quite sure why you see the two quotes you isolate as contradictory. The differences between communities will be examined through the lens of their reaction to the troll. The piece will be about both the troll and the communities he interacts with. I am writing a multi-page feature in a respected national paper, not a couple of columns in the Metro.

[jrussel]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jrussel will no doubt suggest that the online

> community reacts aggressively and defensivley to

> the revelation of the troll in their midst.

>

> In fact its just a typical group reaction to

> someone proving themselves a complete t wat.

No, in fact the reaction is not always aggressive.

In fact one of the distinguishing features of the EDF is that there was little aggressive reaction. In fact these boards are on the whole remarkably polite! Even swearwords are censored. I'm interested to find out whether this is a result of the postership or the administration. I am looking into this at present in fact. Perhaps someone can tell me whether the EDF is run as a commercial enterprise? Generally when there is advertising, a board's moderators are more cautious about what they allow. Although it makes for a "family friendly" atmosphere, it can sometimes restrict the scope of discussion. Again, the postership's socio-economic tendencies will determine to some extent how much censorship is tolerate.

[*Bob*]

You can can still say shit and wank, no problem.

But I don't think it will let you do cunt.

[*Bob*]

Oh.. looks like you can't say wank either now as well then.

[Ladymuck]

*expects Mark to turn up any minute - LOL!*

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Jackie Boy, you mention "in fact" three times. Lady Brocklehurst would have a fit. Sloppy writing - would you like me to proof your article?