Durova whines about "Foundation Discretion", ...she feels that she's not been respected! Options

From Foundation-L

Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have
been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with
the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the
story would be published.
******
Regardless of the merits of the Carolyn Doran story, I'm quite concerned.
An interview gives the Register the appearance of respectability.

The Register recently ran two pieces that said very damaging things about me
and made no effort to check its facts with me either time. Much of what it
alleged was inaccurate, and one of those stories got picked up in the
legitimate tech press. The result of that attention probably harms my
career prospects.

I've put in two years, 20,000 edits, and thousands of hours of volunteer
time. Editors who know the facts of this situation have been e-mailing me
saying they don't want to become administrators anymore. I don't think it
helps volunteer morale for the Foundation counsel to give interviews to the
Register, especially at this time, and particularly when it surprises us
like this.

-Durova

So, the WMF is under a very serious attack that they're scrambling to fix and all she can think about is "the nasty things that the Register said about me" and "volonteer morale"?

Reality check time, people!

Reality check time, people!

They mailed the Reality Check —

But it was sent to a ŠØض€® Š∃∃©®€T £Î§T …

Jonny

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The Respect-Contempt Axis is very much in play these days, both within Wikipedia and in the mainstream media stories about the misadventures of high-level figures inside the Wikipedia power structure.

There is an obscure branch of research known as Facework Theory that examines adversarial dialogs in which mutual respect dissolves and devolves into mutual contempt.

The Wikipedians have demonstrated an astonishing level of ignorance and obliviousness of facework dynamics, and have mindlessly engineered a lamentable death spiral into the netherworld of negative face, both for themselves and for most of their critics.

Reality check time, people!

They mailed the Reality Check —

But it was sent to a ŠØض€® Š∃∃©®€T £Î§T …

Jonny

Writing bad reality checks is SAP/GAAP at WMF.

From Foundation-L

... I don't think it
helps volunteer morale for the Foundation counsel to give interviews to the
Register, especially at this time, and particularly when it surprises us
like this.

-Durova

So, the WMF is under a very serious attack that they're scrambling to fix and all she can think about is "the nasty things that the Register said about me" and "volunteer morale"?

Reality check time, people!

What strikes me as amazing is that Durova continues to advocate a policy of WP:DENY vis-a-vis critics of the project. That is, she would rather ignore adversarial (yet potentially constructive) commentary, rather than engage with it and look for common ground solutions.

Isn't that the mentality that has aggravated most of the known, factual flare-ups over the past year?

It really is a shame Durova didn't win a seat on ArbCom. Wikipedia would have imploded within a few months.

Greg

Wikipedia has cultivated a misanthropic climate of mistrust and antagonism that has alienated participating editors, innocent subjects of BLPs, and the consuming public (notably including the education community). Wikipedians have developed an impenetrable immune response to constructive criticism, thereby setting the stage for competing alternatives, such as Google's newly announced Knol initiative.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 14th December 2007, 3:01pm

Probably he didn't contact her because he only used her screen name.

One of the amusing things in much of this is watching people attack the Register as if all publications don't do these things. NOR has created this bizarre culture that assumes anything a "reliable source" says is true, or that a source is either reliable or not. If you know a lot about a situation that's being reported on, you'll always have a complaint of some sort.

Now Durova seems to want a policy of only engaging "reliable sources," or even to blacklist papers that publish something Wikipedia doesn't like. Been done, I think.

Not to blame Durova, but this is why heavily involved volunteers aren't great for making these kinds of decisions.

It is astonishing that anyone would expect to be taken seriously as they wander about wearing a fake mask, using a fake name, and dancing around as if they are Robinhood. LOL!

Wake up Durova and understand that if I show up to a board meeting wearing a mask and a cape, trying to pass myself off with a fake passport, I will escorted out of the building.

Real names and real credentials are what work in the real world.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Fri 14th December 2007, 3:45pm

Real names and real credentials are what work in the real world.

Amen.

Real names and real credentials are what work in the real world.

Amen.

Yes, but not always on the internet. I'm of the "aliases are not the main issue" camp. Durova's been saying her name in the media for months, and has it turned her into a nice woman? JeHochman uses his real name, and is he a nice guy?

Well?

Ok, then.

Having said that, it is galling that people behind masks can attack people in their real names (suckers!). Yes. Just that taking everyone's mask off isn't going to solve the problem, at its core. I've seen lots of abuse on chatboards. Attacking real names from behind a mask is only one ploy. The real way to stop it is to have someone at the top who finds the abuse unacceptable. No other way, really. And THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE, imuho.

Now Durova seems to want a policy of only engaging "reliable sources," or even to blacklist papers that publish something Wikipedia doesn't like. Been done, I think.

At the risk of being like Durova and squealing "COI" (squealing being a word for Durova, lol), if she really wanted to propose such changes, and she had any foggy clue about how to really deal with people, she's shut her piehole for about a few months. Right now, she is really, really embarassing, to the Foundation, to WP, and probably even to Jimbo (though Im sure he would never tell her that, I'd be highly unsurprised if he groused to a few people).

She's brought shame on the ranks. The thing to do for now is hunker down.

But she's such a drama queen (which is what caused the problems, and why she attacked people so much, drama, drama, drama factory), that she cant be quiet long enough to read the writing on the wall.

She may well be the little soldier that brings down the entire army. Really.

What strikes me as amazing is that Durova continues to advocate a policy of WP:DENY vis-a-vis critics of the project. That is, she would rather ignore adversarial (yet potentially constructive) commentary, rather than engage with it and look for common ground solutions.

Does she have any small tiny chink of awareness of how damaging to Wikipedia is the open suggestion of blacklisting publications which have badmouthed HER with information that is openly viewable online? Really?

She's making some of the most ugly aspects of Wikipedia (cronyism and censorship) evident. Most corrupt people are smarter than this, I have to say.

It really is a shame Durova didn't win a seat on ArbCom. Wikipedia would have imploded within a few months.
Greg

OH YEAH. Well, it isn't for lack of your strong support and promotion. That you got not ONE purchase is kind of a sad commentary. I thought of buying one, but then I thought: Do I want to see D's face on my morning coffee? Do I want to see her face in my t-shirt drawer? And the answer was..............

Anonymity tends to foster the transformation of an otherwise credentialed enterprise into an MMPORG.

I have nothing against MMPORGs. Games and simulations are an important educational medium. But to my mind, writing an encyclopedia is an enterprise where credentials have meaning, and where gaming the system is inappropriate.

Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have
been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with
the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the
story would be published.

This from a woman who gives press statements without consulting the Foundation?

The Register recently ran two pieces that said very damaging things about me
and made no effort to check its facts with me either time.

Pretty ironic stuff froma woman who accuses people on Wikipedia regularly without checking her facts!!! And Im sure Im not the only one who caught the irony, lol.

Much of what it
alleged was inaccurate, and one of those stories got picked up in the
legitimate tech press. The result of that attention probably harms my
career prospects.

Not really. Not unless you put "Durova" on your resume, or brag about your experiences at Wikipedia, which Im sure you wont be able to stop yourself from doing (rofl)

I've put in two years, 20,000 edits, and thousands of hours of volunteer
time. Editors who know the facts of this situation have been e-mailing me
saying they don't want to become administrators anymore.

Durova - put your glasses on when you read your emails. They said, "I dont think you should be an administrator anymore".

I don't think it
helps volunteer morale for the Foundation counsel to give interviews to the
Register, especially at this time, and particularly when it surprises us
like this.-Durova

Especially when you are the main topic of discussion. Funny how you never had that kind of sensibility when naming people in the press before? Tim Hill perhaps? (she correlated his edits with real congressional scandals in her articles, and that got picked up in the press). I wonder if she ever thinks about those kinds of damages she created, the little selfish hypocrite....

Bad pun of the day...

The reality cheque will bounce.

(OK so maybe the bad pun department is not my ideal line of work)

From Foundation-L

Editors who know the facts of this situation have been e-mailing me
saying they don't want to become administrators anymore.
-Durova

You see? She doesn't think Wikipedia is worth anything if you're not going to be an admin.

It really is a shame Durova didn't win a seat on ArbCom. Wikipedia would have imploded within a few months.

I think the other members would probably shoot themselves just to block out all the "please refactor"s.

The Register recently ran two pieces that said very damaging things about me
and made no effort to check its facts with me either time.

Pretty ironic stuff froma woman who accuses people on Wikipedia regularly without checking her facts!!! And Im sure Im not the only one who caught the irony, lol…Funny how you never had that kind of sensibility when naming people in the press before? Tim Hill perhaps? (she correlated his edits with real congressional scandals in her articles, and that got picked up in the press). I wonder if she ever thinks about those kinds of damages she created, the little selfish hypocrite....

Though I'm a little reluctant to pick up the Durova thread at this point, what you've highlighted above is so important, I'm going to give it a bump.

Some Wikipedia administrators are so unreflective about what they're doing that they can't recognize themselves in the mirror.

Some Wikipedia administrators are so unreflective about what they're doing that they can't recognize themselves in the mirror.

Some Wikipedia administrators aren't visible in a mirror.

Just to buttress Poetlister's oblique comment, for the less "reflective" among us...

The obligatory vampire joke:

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:52pm

The thing about vampires is that they have regenerative powers. They keep coming back from the dead.

The thing about vampires is that they have regenerative powers. They keep coming back from the dead.

then in the spirit of WP:DUCK... I conclude Durova = Vampire.

The thing about vampires is that they have regenerative powers. They keep coming back from the dead.

Only if you don't stake 'em through the heart or cut off their head.