[Air-l] we need a better word than lurking

[Jonathan Marshall]

> I am hoping that someone who is "more established" than I will 
> challenge this argument.

Not that i'm established but lets have a go

> Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are 
> often not terribly different.

This might be true, but its not really an argument in favour of keeping those understandings similar.  Biases in everyday uses of terms may affect the nature of the research that is carried out.  It may prevent fresh ways of looking at things.

> Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a 
> period of many years. 

whose concensus?  i think enough people have said things in this thread to show that there is a remarkable spread of meanings and bahaviours in the term 'troll', and my experience of list or newsgroup life seems to show (to me) that the rhetoric of naming someone as troll, or whatever, is part of the way that person is categorised, resists categorisation etc and is thus part of the politics of the list, the way the established members defend and maintain both themselves and the ambience/mood/etiquettes of the list (sometimes necessarily). 

In other words, what becomes trolling is defined in action, not beforehand.  It is usually aimed at newbies and strangers who have not built up a place on the list, and is less aimed at those who have built up a place, even though the behaviour may be 'objectively' (if you will pardon me) indistinguishable. 

it thus has to do with the 'hiddeness/familiarity' dimensions of both people and intention

> I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" 
> is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions 
> of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion. 

to me 'antogonistic' is rarely a given. It is a matter of interpretation.  As such, making the allocation is again a political/social act.  It also begs the question of what is established tradition, how it is maintained and who it applies to. Again in my experience, tradition applies in different degrees to different people, and it is continually being created and argued over. 

One of things about being on mailing lists or newsgroups line is that there is rarely any marker of tradition other than what is occuring at the moment and the memories of participants - many of whom may only have been present for a day or too.

There are wider cultural conventions and contradictions at play as well in making these traditions and knowledges, these also need to be considered.  i don't think the online is yet its own world.

>"Flaming", or making caustic remarks 
> toward, the established principals (or other active participants) 
> of an organization is certainly trollish behavior. 

It seems you agree with the political/rhetorical/interpretational aspects here.
Again i would simply say that this is not 'objective', but is something which becomes decided by some people and the effect of decision depends on many things about list controll (moderators, moderators support groups and the 'professional'/offline connections between group members etc - which then takes us elsewhere in the society and possibly to already established factors/factions/frictions)

> We call the folks who do 
> this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or 
> "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their 
> (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships.

Agreed, expect i don't know if *everyone* (who is the 'we' here - point made to demonstrate the dynamics of category formation and status) calls such people 'n00bs'.
 
> Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in 
> many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of 
> the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - 
> claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims...

i guess i am arguing that the terms do not reflect any workable operationalisation. They are terms of abuse and politicing.  they may be necessary, and so on, for that politicing and social maintenance, but the whole dynamic is more intersting than easy acceptance of the terms suggests

jon

(all of this is covered in much more detail in my ethnography of the mailing list cybermind, which is due from Peter Lang, in (i think) the series  New literacies and Digital epistemologies, hopefully very soon).

> 
> --elijah
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
> http://www.aoir.org/
> 
> 
>       
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
> http://www.aoir.org/
>