There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Proll
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Neologism[edit]
This neologism is terrible, and the concept goes way further back. I suggest a move to "professional troll" or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a strange article/listicle too. I don't think the arbitrary "noticeable"/"insignificant" division is useful. I suggest merging into one list, or else splitting it thematically (politicians, pundits, etc). I can think of a few additions (Fred Phelps & the WBC, Andy Martin, TheAmazingAtheist, maybe Julie Burchill). Not sure that Richard Dawkins belongs on there: much as I disagree with a lot of things he's said in recent years, there's very little of it I would consider trolling. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- And it's pretty clear Dawkins doesn't do this for a living - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've culled the shitty "anyone I don't like" list. If anyone wants to add people to it while it's at "proll", find people who've citably been labeled one by Baxter - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)