Frequently, name-calling other users as a 'troll' is used as a means of ad hominem argument to ignore the content of what they are actually saying. The content (and editorship) of Encyclopedia Dramatica is a major victim of this. Frequently the seriousness and truth contained in articles critical of organizations such as Wikipedia are dismissed simply because the text is present on ED, ignoring whether or not the text is actually true. Those who believe this is a valid means of assessing information should read: Accusations that presume knowledge of motives Fix content, not perceived motives Keep criticism narrow Defining 'troll' One major factor of ED is, in spite of the humour and the tolerated presence of untruths for the purpose of comedy, it is a place that the truth can also exist. Its liberal nature is why it is more open to conveying things which would otherwise be censored on any Wikimedia site, or even critic sites such as the Wikipedia Review, both of which will ban users they don't want associated with them. Any who would simply accuse someone as trolling as a means of dismissing them are intellectually lazy, and can't come up with a valid means of criticizing others' behaviours. This unfortunately includes fellows like Gmax who levied that accusation against me. The main problem with trolling is that it's so incredibly vague that you can apply it to anybody. "Fishing for a reaction": is communication itself not ALWAYs this? The reason people say things to one another is because we care about what other people think, and what they have to say about what we express to them. In this way, anyone who has ever talked to anyone else can be labelled a 'troll'. As if to imply that everyone else who expresses themself is not doing so in expectations of reaction to their words. Some add the additional stipulation to trolling that someone is 'indenting to disrupt', or possibly that they are misrepresenting themselves as someone they are not. For example, going to a jewish forum and insulting jewish people to disrupt their community, or doing so even though you actually like jews and simply want entertainment at their reactions. These 2 additional criteria points are good in terms of giving 'trolling' an actual useful and specific definition. But they err in that they are at best hypothetical things, stuff that people guess at. Both of them rely on knowing what the actual motivations and beliefs of someone are. In that sense, to define someone by this more exclusive definition of troll, you must be a telepath. That, or you're just fucking guessing. Yet much of the time, people may assume you're lying about your beliefs, or lying about your motivations, when in fact you are not. People misjudge one another's minds and intents ALL THE TIME. In the end, it's a matter of heresay, and prone to extensive misuse. This is why responsible people do not waste their time with guessing-shit like that, and instead they analyze behaviour, and respond to that, because behaviour is something that has evidence. I post this in expectation that people will dismiss the 'Revue' simply as 'trolling'. It is most certainly to get a reaction, yes, just like any newspaper would be. Just like any 'Review' would be. But it is not here to be dishonest, it is here to provide valid feedback, truthful analysis. As far as intending to disrupt: well, I personally love the Wikimedia projects, and contributed cooperatively and constructively to them for half a decade during my 2005-2010 period as an editor. Unfortunately for me, I paid more attention to improving articles than I did to WikiPolitics, and didn't pursue things which might have saved me like Adminship. My intent is not to disrupt or damage the projects, but rather to improve them. My experiences have taught me that there are corrupt members consolidating power in these communities who are abusing their powers and not attempting to abide by any policy. I believe that when these people are made accountable for their actions and under closer scrutiny (and perhaps more responsible people elected to supplement or replace them) that this will be better for the community and the truthfulness of information in the long-term. So in short: no, this isn't trolling. Trolling is boring, and it's not as challenging as presenting and confronting real atrocities truthfully.