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

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.

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