Stop the Presses - Durova, WP Press Officer, Calls Congress (and, Does she not have a real job? Options

First off, I have an instinct to push my views ahead of everyone else's. Now, because I know that I am a sucky manager, I compensate for that by instead getting everyone else to all have my power, and I just sit back and watch. Except that that then creates a situation where people create hidden power, and they sneak around and form secret groups that secretly have power, and ultimately they usurp me.

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove.

If so, which one is Valerie Plame? Durova or Slimv?

(answer: neither)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 15th August 2007, 9:02pm

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove.

I don't know who that is. I keep thinking Rove McManus, but I know that Karl Rove must be some American celebrity that has nothing like that.

Nah, I'm just not pushy enough to be a manager. I am so prone to power trips that it's scary. I am always having to stop myself. All that it would take would be for me to feel for some reason that I was justified in a massive power trip and all hell would break loose.

Disagree with me? You get a few goes, but after a while tough luck mate you're banned. Try to annoy me? Banned. Just say something that I take the wrong way? Banned. Any time I tell someone to fuck off, that's basically a threat that next time, you're banned.

Unless of course I'm trying hard not to power trip, which is actually what happens because I know I'm a sucky manager. Which then means that you've got me constantly second guessing myself, and incapable of making any firm decisions.

Don't anyone ever consider nominating me for adminship anywhere. I'll only accept it if everyone is an admin.

Even if someone sold me a Wikipedia admin thing, well, I'd probably use it to fiddle around with some things, but I wouldn't honestly be able to keep it for long. Once I've checked out some things, I'd sell it to someone else. I just don't trust myself with such things.

Nominate me for adminship, and I'll go through the whole thing giving you reasons why you should not vote for me. If I even got one support vote, I'd criticise that person and say well why do you think I'd be any good? Do you just vote support in the hope that I'll support you?

I probably should have accepted that nomination for adminship on Wikipedia, come to think of it. Would have been funny.

Duh-Rove-A?

Read that with a Bob-&-Doug (Mac ! Kenzie) accent …

Coincidence ? I don't think so !

Jonny

PS. My 2^11 th post !!!

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 15th August 2007, 9:24pm

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove.

I don't know who that is. I keep thinking Rove McManus, but I know that Karl Rove must be some American celebrity that has nothing like that.

Karl Rove was arguably one of the most powerful men in the U.S. until last week, certainly one of the most powerful people in the White House, other than Dick Cheney and the big guy. He organized Bush's rise to power in Texas, and was his chief political strategist, and is largely credited with Bush winning his 2nd term, in the face of not great popularity.

Karl Rove is huge in US politics. He was often called "Bush's Brain". And he fits right into your analogy of liking to be no. 2, and placing the power in everyone else's hands and manipulating it. That's what he did. Unfortunately, he did it a bit too much, and he's left quite a muddle. Just this week.

About my joke about outing spies (Durova or Slim). Rove 'out'ed Valerie Plame, the U.S. spy as payback to her husband for rebutted the Bush's (16 words speech) to Congress justifying the Iraq invasion in 2003. Wilson said that Bush was wrong, in an op-ed to the New York Times, called "What I Didn't Find in Africa", Plame's husband, Joe Wilson (a former Ambassador and diplomat) had been sent to investigate the Niger yellowcake Iraq rumor, and found it to be false. So he wrote the article and his spy-wife was outed to the press by Rove.

Hence my joke about 'outing' spies (which you didn't catch).


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 15th August 2007, 9:49pm

Hey hey hey I didn't say I liked to manipulate people. I like to help people. There's a difference. Isn't there? Now I'm all offended. But its better than being called a nazi.

Oh and sorry but stuff like that, about US internal politics, doesn't generally make the news over here, in a whole other country. Do you want me to tell you about Australian internal politics? I'm sure it'd bore you just as much.

I actually might surprise you with what I know about Australian politics. But no matter.

Many people outside the US know about Karl Rove. He was a regular name in the FT and the IHT. He's on the cover of both today. If he's not on the cover of next week's Economist, there will be a huge article about him there.

The comment about manipulating people was a joke. You aren't anything like Karl Rove, other than that you said you like to promote other people than yourself. Which is very Rove like.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 15th August 2007, 9:51pm

Duh-Rove-A?

Read that with a Bob-&-Doug (Mac ! Kenzie) accent …

Coincidence ? I don't think so !

Jonny

LOL.

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Karl Rove did affect you. He had more bearing on US foreign policy than did Condoleeza Rice. She was just the messenger. Rove and Cheney were by far the most powerful in there. For a time, also Rumsfeld, and Feith.

But anyways. This was out of a joke, from you saying you liked to promote the other guy to be the more powerful. That was my point in bringing it up.

Anyway I hijacked this thread because I don't really understand it lol.

Anyway I hijacked this thread because I don't really understand it lol.

Don't feel bad. Durova is the queen of the complex investigation. Hence complicated. This vibe probably emanated from the thread, and confused you.

It happens.



She has that effect on people.

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope... if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

The thing is, Wikipedia's tagline is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". What about that tagline suggests that someone with a vested interest in a subject cannot edit on it?

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 16th August 2007, 1:00am

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope... if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

Because it bears repeating, Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. All the sites you mention above are social networking sites, or news sites with reader commentary. Wikipedia doesn't give an honest impression of itself, in addition to hiding the rules from users, and hiding the rules from new users is a strategy per Jimbo's listserver message October 2001.

The thing is, Wikipedia's tagline is "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit". What about that tagline suggests that someone with a vested interest in a subject cannot edit on it?

There's nothing clear on that point - which was my point exactly. You can't possibly find out about COI, unless you are a total daily hanger-on-wanna-be-social-networking-site person (oops, I mean a daily editor), or unless you violate it.

But to be fair (and I'm always fair to Wikipedia), I think that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a better tagline than,

"The FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA that lets you edit anything you don't CARE about, KNOW about or WORK with, AND ONLY IF you don't revert an edit three times, remain civil, and don't make personal attacks or legal threats.

Not very catchy. They'd have to spin it a bit for flavor...

Otherwise the naked honesty of that byline would drive away most of the free labor. If you know what I mean...

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

I don't think it is out of the question to have a top 10 list of don't do items, and to ask all editors to read a page, and click "do you understand this yes/no" to enter the site for the first time. It would solve a lot of problems, which stem from newbie attacks by jaded admins who think that anyone who steps out of line is an evildoer.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 12:54am

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

Lucille AND her ball.

Actually taken from the Sitepro version of the article "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?" starring Durova as the main corrupt admin.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 12:50am

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

I thought for a second that it was the McDonald's clown. What was his name again?

I thought for a second that it was the McDonald's clown. What was his name again?

That would be Durova.

Or Jimbo Macdonald.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 12:58am

Ronald McDonald? Not quite though.

It's Lucy..everyone loves Lucy..

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

No where, no how, is it stated that you have to read the NPOV policy. This is a rule that people throw at you when they criticize you, or (worse) are attacking your edits. I never had a problem with NPOV, personally, but many people do.

Okay how about this idea:

As a new user, when you sign up for your account, it gives you a list of "Do you agree to these terms?" and you have to click "Yes" and then you immediately have a message in your talk page to state what the 10 main rules are:

Creating articles:

1) Notability - all articles must be on subjects that are suitably notable, and worth having in an encyclopedia
2) Not libelous for living persons - when writing about living persons, be extra sure that there is nothing negative without very clear proof that it is accepted as fact

Editing:

3) NPOV - you must only edit about things that you can write neutrally about, displaying no bias whatsoever.
4) Verifiability - whatever you say must be provable by a link to a respected online site

Don't dos with editing:

5) Vandalism - don't blank a page, make deliberately false claims in a page (e.g. saying that someone has died when they haven't), or significantly alter a page with nonsense
6) Sock puppets - don't have more than one account, unless there is a clear reason to, and in these cases clearly identify that they are both you
7) Don't revert 3 times in a row - Try to establish a middle ground with the user. If you revert their edits 3 times in a row, you can be blocked for 24 hours.

Behaviour with other editors:

8) Assume Good Faith - if in doubt, always assume that everyone is acting responsibly
9) Civility and respect - don't swear, put other editors down, or otherwise be mean to anyone for any reason
10) No legal threats - don't suggest, hint or say anything related to an accusation that anyone might have broken any law, regardless of whether they have. Make all claims outside of Wikipedia's main area
11) Don't harass - as with anywhere else, don't bother other editors who for whatever reason don't want to talk to you. Don't follow them around, don't edit the same articles as them, and if they ask you not to send you messages, then don't.

And a special one:

12) Don't link to attack sites - Any site which may mention a Wikipedia editor by their real name, or otherwise be used to criticise or suggest that anyone on Wikipedia is anything other than perfect is described as an attack site. Consistently linking to attack sites is grounds for being blocked.

And lucky number 13

13) Always sign your comments! Use ~~~~ after everything you've written.

That seems to be basically it, from my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

"The 13 main rules of Wikipedia" doesn't seem very catchy though.

And really, for all anonymous edits, this should come up for every time that they try to edit, as a little warning, with links to every step.

Or perhaps even just a link that says "Remember the 13 rules of Wikipedia editing - click here if you've forgotten". That'd do. Enough people would click that if they were unsure.

Wikipedia could relatively easily embed that in each and every page. Link to a general rules page, which in turn links to each of the individual rules, which in turn links to more obscure rules.