Durova on Youtube: Obey us, lowly peons, Finally. The 15 minutes she's committed mayhem to achieve Options

The one, the only. Durova online, at the SMX conference.

44, going on 60. She's our lady woman.

Youtube Link



Interview with Lise Broer "Durova", Administrator, Wikipedia at SMX Social Media New York 2007, October 17, 2007

She's NOT 44. She's Grandma.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 7:21am

Well, at least now you can actually see the smugness.

Hi Lackey, where you been? We've missed you. Great spot.

However, I must say I really don't like people being called bitches, no matter how annoying they may be online, or even if there is a line drawn through the word. Sorry boss.

But stay around.

No need to make fun of her looks. But I was rather taken aback by her answer to a general question about the Wikipedia community: that certain elements of the community that "don't serve a visible function of helping to build an encyclopedia periodically get stripped away". All she has to say about the community is that it "strips away" those it considers harmful elements? Why not talk about collaborative work, consensus, that kind of thing? I am aghast at the mentality that would lead one to think that the most important thing to say about the Wikipedia community is that people are often excluded from it. I don't suppose there will be many Wikiconverts coming from this interview.

Well, at least now you can actually see the smugness.

Too right. Watching this makes me quite sad. An incident that I won't recall here, where Durova really made a fumbling mess of things and pissed off a whole load of good users, comes to mind. Just the thought that if we were all sitting in a room, Durova, myself and the various annoyed but in real life highly respectable people, who were right, there isn't a hope that she'd have the gravitas to do what she did.

Hi Lackey, where you been? We've missed you. Great spot.

However, I must say I really don't like people being called bitches, no matter how annoying they may be online, or even if there is a line drawn through the word. Sorry boss.

But stay around.

Thanks Kato, nice to see you again too.

Sorry. I was trying to use 'gansta speak' but apparently it didnt wash. I heeded your advice, and now she's a 'strikeout' lady.

No need to make fun of her looks.

Oh come on. Of course that's ok. She has the veneer of a smug librarian, whos principal joy is buying milk for the cat back in her apartment. Her looks are part and parcel of her personae; her personae stems from her looks. Lise is a bluestocking. Bluestockings make *solid efforts* to look homely and they tend to suspect (and subvert) women who dare to be intelligent and attractive simulaneously. It's a thing.

But I was rather taken aback by her answer to a general question about the Wikipedia community: that certain elements of the community that "don't serve a visible function of helping to build an encyclopedia periodically get stripped away". All she has to say about the community is that it "strips away" those it considers harmful elements? Why not talk about collaborative work, consensus, that kind of thing? I am aghast at the mentality that would lead one to think that the most important thing to say about the Wikipedia community is that people are often excluded from it. I don't suppose there will be many Wikiconverts coming from this interview.

Mmmme. Don't expect too much from her verbiage. Durova's posts (and apparently her interviews) are all about Durova. (Making Durova look important, wise, etc.). Also about making it look as if she is really a part of Wikipedia, not a flunkie volunteer.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 4:21pm

Watching this makes me quite sad.

Me too, actually. I was fascinated to see what she'd sound like. She can be so vindictive and venomous online.

An incident that I won't recall here, where Durova really made a fumbling mess of things and pissed off a whole load of good users, comes to mind. Just the thought that if we were all sitting in a room, Durova, myself and the various annoyed but in real life highly respectable people, who were right, there isn't a hope that she'd have the gravitas to do what she did.

Oh yes, sure. She's a coward. I couldnt see her saying, or doing, any of the shocking things she does online to people, in real life. She's a mouse. She's Walter Mitty behind the screen and Wonder Woman online. So to speak.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 1:44pm

The guy asking the questions sounds like an electronic voice. I half expect the camera to pull back and it be Stephen Hawking holding the mike.

The guy asking the questions sounds like an electronic voice. I half expect the camera to pull back and it be Stephen Hawking holding the mike.

Dude, this is Durova. It would be Steven King.

Couldn't you see her starring in Misery?

Glad to be back.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 7:26am

I was rather taken aback by her answer to a general question about the Wikipedia community: that certain elements of the community that "don't serve a visible function of helping to build an encyclopedia periodically get stripped away". All she has to say about the community is that it "strips away" those it considers harmful elements? Why not talk about collaborative work, consensus, that kind of thing? I am aghast at the mentality that would lead one to think that the most important thing to say about the Wikipedia community is that people are often excluded from it. I don't suppose there will be many Wikiconverts coming from this interview.

No doubt. That was just odd. I can't imagine that's what the interviewer was asking when inquiring about how the WP community supports the encyclopedia. They say any publicity is good publicity, but that comment was incredibly negative, and isn't an appropriate introduction to Wikipedia.

No doubt. That was just odd. I can't imagine that's what the interviewer was asking when inquiring about how the WP community supports the encyclopedia. They say any publicity is good publicity, but that comment was incredibly negative, and isn't an appropriate introduction to Wikipedia.

If she had a good feel for what people meant, or felt, maybe she'd be working in marketing or would be an SEO (and would be able to get along with people better). Maybe that's why she keeps trying to preach to SEOs (as in, those who can't do, teach). She's very insular, and her inability to step out of the Wikipedia circle is indicative of her inability to self examine (or be objective at alll). In this case, she is showing that she can't imagine a world where the entire focus of action was *not* on fealty to Wikipedia.

She's got a high IQ, but she winds up being not really being very smart, in practice, for this reason.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 7:33am

She's very insular, and her inability to step out of the Wikipedia circle is indicative of her inability to self examine (or be objective at alll). In this case, she is showing that she can't imagine a world where the entire focus of action was *not* on fealty to Wikipedia.

With respect, I disagree. I think she can definitely imagine people not giving fealty to Wikipedia: but they just get wiped away regularly by the "real" contributors, like flies on a windshield.

After I saw the interview the first time, I watched it again, thinking maybe I missed something; that an edit had been made which had cut out an important part of the interview, resulting in a gaffe. But no: there were no edits. He asked her about the vital community of Wikipedia editors "who really care" about building a good reference work, and she replied with the robotic and cheerless "aspects of the community that don't serve a visible function of helping build the encyclopedia periodically get stripped away."

I don't understand the mentality that would cause someone to say that during a public interview. :/

I hope that I am not being too picky here, but there is no real reason to give Durova's real name. Thanks to Encyclopedia Dramatica, we know it, but the world doesn't. Its just as useful for our purposes to call her Durova than to call her by her real name. So would it be possible to get rid of the real name element?

This isn't to protect Durova, its more to protect how we are viewed by others.

Correction: I just watched the video and right at the start the interviewer says her real name, hence its perfectly fine for us to say it.

I think it would be great if Wikipedia Review Youtubed itself, quite frankly, if only to truly witness how really witty and funny Somey and Johnny Cache are on screen.

And if Brandt wanted to go on Youtube, he could always speak behind a screen and with a distorted voice too...

Just finished watching it.

It just sounded like a really seriously boring interview to me. I had to struggle not to go to sleep halfway through watching it. So what is so exciting about it? She speaks with a monotone voice and doesn't really say anything of any importance, but then again the interviewer doesn't really ask anything of any importance either. No, you can't just go in and edit your own entry. She didn't get animated, didn't explain why not, no controversy, nothing. Just plain old factual stuff. It was like watching two machines talk to each other.

I was a little surprised to see what Durova looks like. And yes, it is good to put a face, and a voice, to who she is. And kudos to Durova for being strong-willed enough to put her real name, face, and voice out there. It gives her a lot more respect from me, and I am sure from many others out there. It shows that she is a bit more genuine than the ones who hide behind anonymity.

She looked like a librarian to me, not like some bikie war veteran at all. But then again, maybe she has bikie war vet clothes elsewhere, and this was her monotone plain look.

I also had trouble understanding her accent. Sorry! She'd probably have trouble understanding mine too! LOL. Sometimes when we type out here, and can read each other easily, we forget that how we speak might be completely impossible for people to understand if they come from different countries.

I think it would be great if Wikipedia Review Youtubed itself, quite frankly, if only to truly witness how really witty and funny Somey and Johnny Cache are on screen.

And if Brandt wanted to go on Youtube, he could always speak behind a screen and with a distorted voice too...

Indeed, someone (it doesn't really matter who, and wear a mask if you want to be anonymous) should make a YouTube video to speak about Wikipedia Review, if for no other reason than then people have something to look at.

We've been talking about this for the best part of 2 years though, and I think at this stage someone has to just up and do it, out of their own initiative.

"aspects of the community that don't serve a visible function of helping build the encyclopedia periodically get stripped away."

Isn't that the Ryulong philosophy? Delete user pages he doesn't like?

Here is my "aspect" which the Wikipedians saw fit to strip away from the community...

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

Probably some 14 year old admin, thought that 'tertiary' was aggressive, and put out the word that 'you must be stopped'.

With respect, I disagree. I think she can definitely imagine people not giving fealty to Wikipedia: but they just get wiped away regularly by the "real" contributors, like flies on a windshield.

After I saw the interview the first time, I watched it again, thinking maybe I missed something; that an edit had been made which had cut out an important part of the interview, resulting in a gaffe. But no: there were no edits. He asked her about the vital community of Wikipedia editors "who really care" about building a good reference work, and she replied with the robotic and cheerless "aspects of the community that don't serve a visible function of helping build the encyclopedia periodically get stripped away."

I don't understand the mentality that would cause someone to say that during a public interview. :/

But that's what I meant. I didn't mean that she doesn't realize not everyone is pro-Wikipedia. I meant the tor tunnel through which she apparently views the world, and hence limits her world view, causing her to wind up talking about 'we cut out that which does not serve us' as an answer to a question about 'hey, what's fun about what you do'.

The mentality that you don't understand is of someone who doesn't find joy in caring (about creating a good product, which actually, on some level she does care about, because she writes well and works hard as an admin). But verbalizing that as a joy doesnt spring to her lips, because her main joy, or motivation, is not the writing (which it should be) or even in guiding new people. She finds joy is knocking knocking down. That's the saddest (and most revealing) thing about the interview.
[url=http://www.searchenginejournal.com/smx-panel-recap-wikipedia-yahoo-answers-answer-sharing/5842/]

Lise Broer, better known as “Durova” gave us some incredible insight on how administrators police and check the efforts of what each and every person is up to.

[/url]

which is officially called "policing". She's not about the community. She's about the power. Every comment about her indicates this.

Mitty is a meek, mild man with a vivid fantasy life: in a few dozen paragraphs he imagines himself a wartime pilot, an emergency-room surgeon, and a devil-may-care killer. The character's name has come into more general use to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, appearing in several dictionaries.[1] The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs." [2]

Although the story has humorous elements, some critics see a darker and more significant message underlying the text, leading to a more tragic interpretation of the Mitty character. Even in his heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the final one sees Mitty dying bravely in front of a firing squad.

(Wikipedia Entry for 'Walter Mitty')

I was closer to the truth when I mentioned Walter Mitty than I thought . Emergency room surgeon? Devil may care killer? Firing squad?

Who here doesn't call to mind someone crossing the Berlin Wall at gunpoint, tearing down the wall of a burning building with her bare hands to rescue her Harley (and a human being at the same time), and running an iron man marathon with her foot tied to a 20 pound sack of flour? (and a baby in her backpack).

NOTE: Someone should video-capture this interview. It will definitely be yanked soon. I dont have the capacity. Does anyone here?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 1:11pm

Interviewer: What's the most important thing for businesses to know about Wikipedia?

Durova: You have less to worry about me the administrator, then you do about the press"

Isnt this an ironic comment for someone who actually CALLS the press, to give, 'information' (some of it distorted, attempted incrimination) on editors? She called AP and tried to convince them that Greg Kohs was a liar with her emails. She leaks names, or writes them online. She writes responses to almost every press article about Wikipedia, asking the author to please contact her?

She's desperately seeking to be a part of the press process. And she's actually someone who gives you much to worry about, among all the administrators. She is known for attacking people in print online. And she considers herself to be less dangerous than the press?

Does anyone else not find thisresponse to the interviewere ironic?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 5th November 2007, 1:18pm

But that's what I meant. I didn't mean that she doesn't realize not everyone is pro-Wikipedia. I meant the tor tunnel through which she apparently views the world, and hence limits her world view, causing her to wind up talking about 'we cut out that which does not serve us' as an answer to a question about 'hey, what's fun about what you do'.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I hesitate to psychoanalyze what someone is thinking, but I can't help but feel your observations are correct: the disconnect between what the interviewer was asking and what the reply was shocked me.