Etymology
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a diminutive of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the sports-fishing technique of trolling, which can be compared with trawling of which it is a near homophone.
The word likely gained currency because of its conveniently apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls" portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, which are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the Three Billy Goats Gruff emphasizes the rootedness of the troll in a physical environment, dislike of outsiders, particularly those who intend to graze on or in his or her domain.
The troll is almost always a male figure and so may parallel the mythological figure of the witch. The use of these labels for people, as opposed to mythological characters in stories, may have its origins in the conflicts between the pagan religions and Christianity in the middle ages. People who continued to practice the "old ways" were often isolated and identified as dealing with dark forces, as "witches" - and perhaps also as "trolls".
Scientific view
Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences.
This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.
However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals with no particular method or thesis cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in research.
Political view
Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a person, as being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or any other term that dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard for reasons that are not directly stated.
Many - perhaps most - people labelled "trolls" are simply being called a name by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute. In other words they are labelled as a "troll" for acting as a dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate: many debates between those with and without administrative or legal powers seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or moral judgement.
As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the label can turn it around to create group identity and the power to collectively resist: Individual outsiders using the label on someone become targets for a collective response. Insiders may use the label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. For instance:
Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies or "culture jammers," challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink - the belief system that prevails in their absence. Wikipedia itself has a project to counter systemic bias.
Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether.
However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and honourable. The Federalist Papers, for instance, were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. The Declaration of Independence, however was not anonymous. If it had been unsigned, it might well have been considered "trolling" by King George III and been therefore that much less effective. In The Infrastructure of Democracy, John Perry Barlow, Joichi Ito, and other US bloggers express a very strong support for anonymous editing (though not "trolling" necessarily) as one of the basic requirements of open politics as conducted on the Internet.
However, a view is not "political" until it is shared by many other people. Most people who take the political view of trolling advocate some form of faction identification, so that biases and relevant discourses can at least be comprehended by opponents of the troll groups' political view. A good example is SOLLOG, a religious movement that encourages trolling, but makes its rationale and doctrine easily accessible to anyone interested.
Forscher's self-described activities in this thread clearly fit the traditional internet use of the word "troll", as shown by the bolded statements above. I merely applied these usages to his description of himself. Note his comment in his most recent post: "I used Alan to make the point and he fell right into the trap." The second bolded section above directly applies.
