If you’ve landed here looking for a serious piece, then don’t let that picture above deceive you into thinking this is merely a blog about that gorgeous specimen. Although it’s easy to stare at him without having any thought of politics. Oh, God no, let’s not talk politics while looking at that picture as this would defame his image. So just keep your eyes firmly affixed on my words.
Supposedly Julian Assange of Wikileaks desires open government. Strange way to go about it. Surely there are times in history when unorthodox means are needed to shake up the stagnant status quo, and government does need more transparency. But does Assange really think that exposing the confidential commuinques of governments to this degree is going to accomplish that? If anything, it’s creating an atmosphere of distrust which is certainly not conducive to openness.
Of course there is a theory that this is all a setup, and the information was purposely released in order to manipulate. That’s what my gut is fairly screaming. Plus, this is a much more plausible scenario than some hacker with altruistic intentions. Pardon me while I snort.
But since I cannot be entirely sure of this being a setup, I’m inclined to think he’s a troll. Jimmy Wales’ description of trolls on Wikipedia is apt (emphasis mine):
Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another’s contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment ‘I don’t agree with you’ by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent). Not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves etc.
Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used to troll). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.
There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls.
The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.
I would bet Julian Assange is feeling mighty fine right now. He’s probably never felt more alive.
And now I must remember the cardinal rule concerning trolls.
RAFrenzy 