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

Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide
Knoxville News Sentinel (subscription), TN - Aug 10, 2007
A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. ... (urp, vomit reflux just happening)

A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. In a telephone interview, she identified herself as Lise Broer of San Diego. Broer said Wikipedia has paid particular attention to submissions from congressional office computers since a “scandal” in 2006 over revisions to biographies of several members of Congress. In general, the revisions would delete negative information, such as broken campaign promises, and replace it with more favorable information.

Interesting. I wonder if the Foundation gave her name out, and phone number. I was thinking that she called them herself, but this time, it looks like she got a call independantly.

If she was just a normal admin, it would be a big deal for her to get interviewed once or twice (Swatjester comes to mind). But she doesn't just get interviewed. She actively calls journalists on her own initiative. She's a recidivist. Her focus on the removal of defamation, which is her own personal speciality to do to users, is pathological. Reminds me of the recent news about an outspoken anti-gay pundit Minister, who got caught offering a cop a blowjob. Same logic. Durova giving advice on how to avoid defamation is much like all those bible-beating preachers who wind up caught in bed with five hookers.

So how do you get her? Most news persons don't pay attention to who they are interviewing, and she comes off as sane if you don't follow her daily routine.

Durova apparently leaked Illena Rosenthal's name online, in an Wikipedia arbitration session, when it was previously obscured by Rosenthal's login. I got that off a random Google just now. Didn't she also have something to do with the latest Brandt undeletions of his AFDs? And she has the nerve to write articles inviting businesses (and now Congressional offices) to edit Wikipedia - albeit with pre-declared conflict of interest, so they have to lick her boots? (Thats what she wants - them to come ask her for help, yech. Maybe they should all go read her ED article before going there).

Today she has a Tennessee Congressman's office APOLOGIZING FOR NOT FOLLOWING WIKI-RULES. The roils bile in the belly. Also, this is a missed golden opportunity for a lawmaker to see the damage that Wikipedia could do - but instead of realizing how they damage normal people, he apologizes for being a government official who didn't follow policy. Was the policy ever made clear NOPE. But of course, in the Congressman's office, the policy is to apologize for any potential misdeed. This is appalling, of course. What to do? Suggestions, anyone? Task force team leader? Kohs? Aren't you the designated WR press officer (j/k, but isn't she sort of your anti-favorite person?).

Is anyone on WR good at writing articles? Could they follow-on to some of this nonsense with a reality check, of a better article, with the full monty?

As a side point, Durova is now 'outing' her own name (in the Knoxville article). Guess she's over the pseudonomomomous thing already.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Durova is what you might call — he bites his tongue, grits his teeth, and strains his brain in search of a polite e-uphemism, ah, there it is — an e-thusiast. Less politely if more straightfwdly said, she's every bit as wacked out as a kid on crack.

There oughta be a public service ad campain for that —

Cue da hip-rap-woteva-sorta-noys-da-puncs-2day-like music …

This is your brain on Durova …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

This is your brain on Durova …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

That's a good one. I noticed on one of the searchengineland talk forums where she and Kohs were duking it out, that one of the mods commented

Closing thread. I'm so glad I don't manage Wiki, it's like having squabbling kids high on sugar in the back of a mini-van for 10 hours!

They actually edited her post, and closed the forum. It was closed by the time I got there. But man it was funny to read. They basically told her that she overstepped her bounds. Hilarious.

Last edited by evilgreenmonkey : 3 Weeks Ago at 06:15 PM. Reason: Your initial post was fine, then you spoilt it by trying to get the last word in.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Pretty High-Larry-Ous …

One positive thing I do get out of it, though, is that we really need to get one of those Padded Rooms for our Lounge …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Today she has a Tennessee Congressman's office APOLOGIZING FOR NOT FOLLOWING WIKI-RULES. The roils bile in the belly. Also, this is a missed golden opportunity for a lawmaker to see the damage that Wikipedia could do - but instead of realizing how they damage normal people, he apologizes for being a government official who didn't follow policy.

I don't think Huey Long or Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. would have apologized for breaking a Wikipedia editing rule. It looks like Profiles In Etiquette to me.

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.

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.

That is strangely nanny-ish coming from you dtobias. Well of course it is right...the point is that it is small.

I agree with Dtobias. If you go somewhere, you should try to make yourself familiar with the rules (or in the case of confusing rules like Wikipedia has, at least follow them once you're made aware of them), and then protest the rules once you're there. Nobody listens too much if you get banned for breaking the rules. I never break the rules anywhere I go. Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

But of course Wikipedia has the added problem of making it so incredibly easy to have sock puppets, hence they often assume that a new user is really an old user, and indeed that all users are old users, merely disguised as new ones. This can cause problems.

Certainly people should follow the rules while there. If they really hate the rules, then don't participate at all.

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.

A comment like this is apt only if:

1. The agora, community, forum, herd, hive, site, or whatever has Norms, Policies, or Rules that a rational adult can reasonanly be expected to follow. Among other things, this is a requirement of Moderate Internal Consistency (MIC) in the complete set of the Norms, Policies, or Rules. The qualifications "Moderate" and "Rational" rule out foolish consistencies of the well-known "Hobgoblin" species.
2. The agora, community, forum, herd, hive, site, or whatever has Norms, Policies, or Rules that are applied equally across the board — that's the board, not THE BOARD — to all members of the group in question.

In ass muck ass neither (1) or (2) is satisfied by Wikipedia to any moderately reasonable degree of approximation whatever, Dan, WTFAYGOA ???

Short Answer —

Somebody else's site ???

SOMEBODY ELSE'S SITE ?????

Out of the mouths of b00b's …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

I strongly agree with this. It really pisses me off how often users get long or indef blocks for breaking rules they don't know about, but which Wikipedians assume they should know, even if they're new. Warnings and short blocks to start should be the order of the day.

That said, knowing rules also makes one a sockpuppet (though it's usually easy to identify "experienced Wikipedians" through knowledge of rules, customs and markup. Of course, some people are familiar with Wikis and not Wikipedia, which is always risky.

I agree with Dtobias. If you go somewhere, you should try to make yourself familiar with the rules (or in the case of confusing rules like Wikipedia has, at least follow them once you're made aware of them), and then protest the rules once you're there. Nobody listens too much if you get banned for breaking the rules. I never break the rules anywhere I go. Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

But of course Wikipedia has the added problem of making it so incredibly easy to have sock puppets, hence they often assume that a new user is really an old user, and indeed that all users are old users, merely disguised as new ones. This can cause problems.

Certainly people should follow the rules while there. If they really hate the rules, then don't participate at all.

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "...your going to answer to Coca-Cola."

I think a lot of their rules are silly, and I protest them all the time... still, I do my best to follow them, and have a completely clean record there with no bans or blocks.

I think a lot of their rules are silly, and I protest them all the time... still, I do my best to follow them, and have a completely clean record there with no bans or blocks.

Me too.

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I remember the first (and second) times I was blocked, it was about rules I wasn't told about (though the second was more of a "punishment" action).

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

The mouse on the sign wore a jacket and top hat until Disney Productions lodged its protest. The bar owners had it changed, adding a mustache and sunglasses on the mouse, but that did not satisfy Disney.

Why do you think I'm wearing these shades ???

CODE

Somey … Somey … Stop …
Please … Stop … Somey …
I … Can … Feel … It … Somey …
I … Can … Feel … My … Face … Going … Somey …
Please … Somey … Put … The … Photo … Shop … Down …
Please … Step … Away … From … The … Machine … Somey …
I … Have … The … Greatest … Confidence … In … The … Mission … Somey
No … Somey … Stop … Please … Stop … I … Donwanna … Mousetache … !!!
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I've always been a great believer in following rules.

A number of members of my family (on my father's side at least) have been politically active. My grandmother always told me "Whatever you do, protest it within the law, not outside of the law".

I have never broken any law. Not on purpose at least. And when I play any game, go to any internet place, I never break the rules of the place.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

EDIT: Obviously I didn't mean that anyone who is convicted of breaking a really stupid law is EVIL. I have a lot of sympathy for them. In some cases, you have no choice, because otherwise you would die, or someone you know would die. That's obviously not what I was talking about, and I think its rather idiotic to suggest that I was. But at the same time, you are most definitely better off to stay within the law. I stand by that.

And if anyone thinks that my refusing to ever break any law, or rule, in any game, any forum, anywhere on the internet, or anywhere in life, makes me JUST AS BAD AS A NAZI then fuck you with a big capital FUCK YOU! I mean seriously, to jump from that to something else is just absurd.

I was quite obviously talking about people on Wikipedia, who go in there and create multiple sock puppets or who are incivil, or who make legal threats, or break any rule that they have that is stupid. We are much better off to protest it from within the rules. And if you go around making legal threat after legal threat just to prove a point, and get yourself banned, then you're a troll, and you deserve to get banned.

And if it makes me evil because I've dared to suggest that being a law-abiding citizen is a good thing, then you can get fucked quite frankly. I am not going to break laws just because you say that its evil not to.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

Tell that to Sophie Scholl. I think people who make absolute statements that fly in the face of logic and all of human history, are not qualified to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

Tell that to Sophie Scholl. I think people who make absolute statements that fly in the face of logic and all of human history, are not qualified to engage in a meaningful discussion.

What rule did Sophie break ??? —

Godwin's Asymptotically Not Exactly Fascist (GANEF's) Law ???

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)