This issue keeps coming up, so I decided to make a topic for it. I see a lot of "dealing with difficult people" or "dealing with trolls" in which both the diagnosis and solutions make the assumption that one can accurately '''read or interpret a person's internal motivations'''. First off, nobody can. You can only guess without ever seeing the right answer in the back of God's book (at least as a mortal). Second, accusing somebody of evil intent is a sure-fire way to start a FlameWar. I am not even sure that outright evil people know they are evil, and those on the border who are passionate about a topic are probably even less likely to agree that they or their content are the product of evil motivations.

In short, focus on a person's output, not their grey CPU because no human knows how the human CPU really works. It is speculation ad nauseum.

Sometimes I think claiming somebody has evil motivations is a lazy way to dismiss them because they are doing something that irritates you but you cannot quite put your finger on why. If you cannot pinpoint the problem as poor content spots, then bypass the discussion rather than try to play Sheriff with "weird semi-bad guys". Unlike the westerns on TV, you can just walk to another town. -- AnonymousDonor

No-one can deny that motivations play a large part in the way people behave and the way they present ideas.

''True, but using motivation guesses to understand content or the author is a very fuzzy art. Using a fuzzy art as a content filter or punishment technique is asking for problems.''

Some consider what they have to say to be that of an expert, and therefore unquestionable. Others may throw out ideas as a farmer does seeds with the intent of idea growing into a mature, complete form. Still others may be seeking recognition and attention. There are some who just want to be helpful and nurturing. Others may not have a clue and need help. Some are conditioned parrots, who merely repeat what they hear, having neither processed nor understood it. If one is interested only in content, and not in the content initiator or provider, something valuable might be missed. Wiki is a place which thrives on interaction, not just a place where authorities fix content. Sometimes in the act of fixing content, one might also include a recognition of the implications of why it is the content appeared in a wiki. -- DonaldNoyes

''Perhaps, but do it in a very diplomatic way.''

----
See also: AccusationThatAssumesKnowledgeOfInternalMotives