Merge and redirect to trolling or Slashdot trolling phenomenon This whole thing should be revisited. The page has devolved into opinions being slung back and forth. No one knows what the "facts" are, although it's clear that the authors of the page that keeps getting reverted aren't interested in facts (on their webpage they claim they've bought the company SCO). Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a place for trolls to advertise?
13:42, 2 Sep 2004 User:SilentCrs, sign your posts with ~~~~ please. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
SilentCrs, the page has only "devolved into opinions" since you started making PoV changes to the article. The encyclopaedic quality of the entry had been resolved until you made your new edits without evidence to backup your minority viewpoint. The facts can be found with simple Google searches of keywords, and the authors of the page have only made occasional edits prior to your intrusion. In response to your point regarding the GNAA website - it is quite obviously a spoof website, not intended to deceive. The GNAA entry does not state that the website is true, merely that it exists.
Further, I don't see how this article is a bad vanity page when we have detailed individual articles for such things as Goatse.cx, shock sites and other such phenomena. While I agree that the entry in past revisions were arguably too laden with details, adding your uncorroborated interjections does not help. --170.224.224.134 23:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We've been through this before, and found that a previous version of the page I keep reverting to was acceptable. Your edits are vitriolic towards the organization and do nothing more than mock it. Goat-see 14:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're PART of the organization. How can you be unbiased about the article? Further, how is having a title such as this in the article not vitriolic?
Keep. You may dispute its POV or accuracy elsewhere. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We've already been through this, and a previous vote was greatly in favour of retaining the article as it is now. It seems only a small minority of misanthropes keeps wanting to throw it out. I don't care for GNAA, and wish their members would get a life, but they are an important part of Internet trolling and have victimised many public forums, and for this notoriety they deserve an article. I see no falsehoods in the article, and through some research of my own have verified most of it with no problems. Crculver 19:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tentatively agree with Sean Curtin: "merge and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon." I can't see why this is important enough to merit treatment at this length. I also would remark that the article as it stands is hideously unbalanced in that it helps a self-aggrandizing group with their self-aggrandizement, without providing even a single cited criticism of their obviously offensive name and reprehensible conduct. -- Jmabel 19:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have a good knack for forgetting my Wikipedia user passwords, so I'll simply withdraw my "vote" and just leave the explanations I gave above and under the GNAA entry's talk page. --170.224.224.134 23:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
