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: Wed 15th August 2007, 11:48am

Okay let me edit my original statement. I had edited it already, and I'll go back to what I originally said, and expand on what I meant by "despicable", which was probably a bad word to use.

Let's take some examples of some laws that are in my opinion seriously stupid, that we should protest:

1) Laws prohibiting people from harming their own body, including taking of certain types of drugs
2) Laws prohibiting consensual sex between two people, because one of them is younger than the other (statutory rape)
3) Laws prohibiting certain kinds of consensual sex between two (or more) people - including any laws about BDSM, homosexuality, or anything else
4) Laws that do not protect people adequately from false accusations, especially with regards to rape, and more with regards to child rape claims.

Now, I consider these laws to be horrific, and awful. So let's see how we could tackle them.

On the first point, sure, I could go and buy a heap of marijuana, which I personally think smells nice, and if it was legal I would probably smoke. So I buy some, smoke it, and go to jail for a really long time. It messes up my career, my life, and puts me down a downward spiral. Alternatively, I could protest it, without taking any myself, and hopefully get the laws changed, so that I can legally do it, and so can everyone else, we get rid of the organised crime element of it, its safer, appropriate warning labels are introduced and we achieve really change.

Second point, sure, I could have when I was 20 had sex with someone who was 15 (I am 32 now so younger kids aren't attractive to me anymore). I could have easily done it, and protested that it was a stupid law. And be regarded as a paedophile. So instead I simply protest that such laws are wrong, and any case that comes up where someone is convicted of it, especially when they are officially labelled as a paedophile, I protest. If it is consensual sex, its not rape.

Third point, now I'm as it turns out not gay, and not really interested in any of the things that are illegal. But I do currently live somewhere where you can go to jail for being a homosexual. It is also perfectly legal to discriminate against people for being gay. So I could protest this by having homosexual sex in public in front of parliament house, and go to jail for it, and its extra stupid because I'm not even gay. Or I could try to petition parliament to change this archaic law.

Fourth point, about the only way to protest this is to myself make a false accusation of rape against someone, or else to get a friend to make a false accusation of rape, just to prove a point. Except that woops that's really seriously messing up the justice system and we'd both go to jail. And it would further make people suggest that these laws need to exist.

And that's the point. In cases where your life depends on it, obviously you need to do things to save your own lives. That is more important than trying to protest a bad law. And that's like DUH as if I meant that. But you don't achieve anything in your protest if you do it from outside of the law. You achieve much more by working within the law.

Even look at this board. We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules, and we protest things simply here. Imagine if we went forth and ambushed Wikipedia. Would we achieve anything? I think not.