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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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



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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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...

QUOTE(Moulton's Objectives on the RfC)

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.

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



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/][/url]

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

(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?

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?

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.

This is all about looking for a full time gig as a rock star/WP big exec. !!!

What a riot!

Of course it is. (Though she's not the greatest public speaker, let's face it). That she wants to hitch her little red wagon to Wikipedia profesionally has been evident from the get-go. I don't begrudge her that (after all, she didn't do so well in film school, it would seem). What I find appalling is how she treats people online, the worst cases of which wind up with some poor sap being libeled and defamed on a highly ranked website. And the pathology of her writing articles about "how businesses can lose their good name online" (Article: "The Dark Side) and go on SEO websites giving advice for businesses as to how to edit on Wikipedia "ethically" (which means following their rules) is heinous. And weird.

She wants to be a Wikipedia professional? Great. It's her personal problems that bleed out into her abuse of power, that cause a problem. If she was a decent human being, i.e. didn't abuse and badmouth people, most of them innocent, and who had done nothing to her (Greg Kohs is a great example) then her working towards gaining some job at the WMF would have been great.

I would say she is too controversial to hire, but we are talking about Jimbo, the man who hired Essjay after the New Yorker scandal. That's probably what Durova counts on. I suspect she'll wind up working for Wikia soon.

I really like Essjay, he was a really sweet guy. WP seemed nicer when he
was around, perhaps things wouldn't be so messed up now if he were still
there.

Oh, I guess he never blocked you, huh? Not everyone has such fond memories.

AB thought that all that lyin' about being a catholic badass so everyone else would bow to the vicar on editing disputes was just A-OK. But then AB is not a model of consistency.

it just all fits into the Wikipedia as "High School Opera" atmosphere of the 15 year olds and the 45 going on 15 year olds running WP. High School Musicals are for the Disney Cheerleader Crowd, dramatic operas are what the 130+ IQ high school crowd. For those not living in the Same Way in Florida as Jimbo, "High School Musical" is America's Cultural Backlash Answer to Britney Spears' Sudden Loss of Abdominal Hair While Exiting Party Cars. Kinda of Like "Leave it To Beaver" was to Elvis the Pelvis. Beaver allusion intended.

"Nice Beaver." - Lt. Frank Drebin
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed." - Priscilla Presley
- Naked Gun

I doubt that... Remember, Essjay was the person who started the whole mess that later became BADSITES, right here. That action served as the precedent for all that was to follow, and he got away with it because everyone had so much respect for his phony academic standing and other "qualifications." Even after that, we tried to give him a way to save face when he "outed" himself, but instead, he just kept digging himself in deeper with damnable lies about "stalking" and "harassment," as if anyone with a brain still believes that shit.

He deserved a lot worse than what he got, and on that you can depend!

As for Durova, well... I guess I don't have anything more to say about her that hasn't already been said, except that I'm still curious as to what that thing around her neck was in the Youtube video. It almost looks like some sort of gold lamé bow-tie... maybe there's a hidden microphone in there? Wearing a wire can get uncomfortable after a while.

I was wondering about that too. Maybe it on sale at JC Penney.

I dont think it is a wire. I think she got her 1988 version of the books "Dress for Success" and "Games Mother Never Taught You" out of the closet, and this item was part of the result.

I already said my opinion about her being a bluestocking, so nuff said.

Well, firstly, the 'so everyone else would...' happened a long time ago. Let the
past die. Secondly, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it mattered that
much.

Thirdly, I really saw it as symptomatic of classist obsession with degrees.

Here's to all the brilliant people who do not have the money for getting degrees!

What exactly do you think I am being inconsistent about at the moment?

After re-watching the clip, I have to say, Durova gave the right answer here. From a professional point of view. It isnt a warm fuzzy one, but to reply to an SEO journalist, you dont want to talk about being chummy, and having a community (which is what Wikipedia is all about and is part of the lure and payoff for working for free) to a reporter for the business community.

The correct answer was "all community activities are encyclopedic-related" because that makes Wikipedia look professional and focused and not about: 1) Gossip 2) Childishness 3) Making friends, and everything else that a social networking site provides. This is the way it is supposed to be, in principle. In fact, as we all know, Wikipedia *is* a social networking site, and the lawless nature of the place, and the fact it is unprofessional is what 'freaks people out' as the reporter put it, as does the fact that the chumminess of the place has more weight than ethics or morals or even the rules of Wikipedia itself (not to mention the law, but don't get me started).

So for her to categorically deny that there was anything non-encyclopedic about the community was the A-OK, correct, Jimbo stamp-of-approval thing to say. She's a good parrot of the party line.

The part about "stripped away" was pychoanalytically-revealing. Because stripping away the undesirable is her schtick. She might well have said simply, "all community collaboration is encylopedic-related" (and blah blah blah about that for 2-3 minutes), and left it at that, but she had to talk about rejecting things. Interesting.

Not going to make fun of her, (I have other fish to fry... RYULONG THE RATSHITEATING WORM I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN BOUT U) but respect is a two way street and the arrogance, smugness
is offensive as far as I'm concern, she's fair game to any and all comment, criticisms, cheap laughs and general parody, at her expense justified or not... she don't like the heat then drop away from the Wikilight. Lets not feel sorry for her...she has giving worst and abused many editors to feel to teary eyed about this loser.


Regarding statements she makes on how to handling a bio, she out and out lies as to a person having a bio and being treated with due respect...see Bryant's saga with the Mighty Virgin, But

In seeing the face of wikipeida though it's admins I'm left with the thought that Wikipeida must be shut down or diminished or... FORCE THOUGH RULE OF LAW to be accountable for it's miscreant and psychopathic Admins.

Can we please watch the language in non-Tarpitted posts, Joseph?

Asking Joseph to watch the language is like asking Jimbo to watch the two-faced backpedaling. It just doesn't work in a pro-active manner.

I gotta say, Joseph has his schtick down to such a science, it does make me laugh just about every time I read it. The line about the Murinae feces-consuming member of the Lumbricidae family was really priceless, right down to the urban spelling and heightened ALL CAPS anger.

Greg

Consider it done. I've got the file saved as type .AVI, thanks to a free, open source software called RenderSoft CamStudio. It comes out a little grainy, but since we're not looking at a JzG's Girls model, I don't think that's going to matter too much. The thing is 80 MB -- there's probably some way to compress it, but I'm very new to CamStudio.

Greg

MAYHAM !!!

Six letters that says it all …

Jonny

Link Mr. Kohs? If so, I can edit my earlier post to it (or at least make a mirror link, in the event the other one is yanked). ps: Thanks, and nice work.

Profanity: Personally, I dont care if someone cusses on this site (or page). It's better than physical violence, or other malevolence, and probably prevents cancer.

But I'm of the 'express and be rid of it' school. Not everyone is.

Back to commenting on people's looks. If I were giving Durova some advice, now is the time to femme it up a bit. When she was younger (assuming that is her in her ED page, because it looks like her), the glasses and simple look was good to prove she was serious. But at this point, it does a woman good to go a bit softer, lighten her hair a bit, get rid of the glasses, and be a bit dressy. Younger smart women don't want to look too pretty at work. But older, well, going a bit more into aesthetical self-care is self-esteem enhancing, and gets a nice reaction externally. She seems to care about her career, based on how carefully she speaks, and despite that this is a tech field, looking polished doesn't hurt.

I'm not sure I want to upload an 80 MB file anywhere just yet. Let's wait and see if YouTube and the person who originally posted it keep it there.

Greg

Did you ever criticise Guy [or any other male we have a photo of]'s looks? Or is it just women you're keen on belittling?

I must agree with Kamryn. The pressure society puts
on women to look a certain way is rather sexist.

Actually we have made fun of Guy, Snowspinner, David Gerard and just about every other male admin's looks so you're wrong on this point.

Even Jimbo's (l?¿se majest??!)

Really? Sucks to be me then, I'm sorry. I just find the criticism of people's looks a bit silly.. there are far more substantial things about Durova to be picking on.

And they have been picked on.

I didnt belittle Durova for her looks. I made comments on them, which reflected my general opinion of who her entire personnage comprises. Frankly, I'm sure sure her looks has played a role in how she has become who she's become, and why she's doing what she's doing.

Which is true of everyone. Because looks affect how other treat you, ergo your responses to the world, etc.

However, given that she's such a negative person, that her cruelty probably has roots in esthetics. Unless they have amazingly strong characters, less attractive people can wind up bitter, because they often get the short end of the stick, in terms of how they get treated. Smart persons falling under this category often tend to try to console themselves with the 'I'm smart, rather than pretty' principle. This works, because attractive people, both men and women, are not assumed immediately as bright, though this is moreso the case for women than men.

In short, she's taking out years of aggression for belittlement on the world, right in front of our eyes.

This is my hunch, but many of my hunches turn out to be rather correct.

In addition to that point, as I said, there is the bluestocking model, to which I fear she avidly ascribes. Enough said.

I may get accused of "stalking" or "harrassment" for this, but the interviewer on the famous Durova YouTube special appears to be Marty Weintraub, a Minnesota-based search engine marketing specialist.



And here is a blog post from an attendee at Durova's SMX presentation. He didn't come away with the "correct" attitude, did he?

That is all.

The SMX Social Media conference hardly seems like the sort of event that would refuse to pay speakers, does it?

And the person who wrote the blog post Greg linked to (ooh, attack site! He linked to Wikipedia Watch!) is no mere "attendee" - Eric Lander is the Associate Editor of the Search Engine Journal, a fairly prestigious SEO publication, if one's sensibilities permit one to imagine that such a thing could actually exist.

He's a bit more circumspect in the article that the above link points to, though:

So in other words, Durova told the participants that Wikipedia admins practice some form of Orwellian surveillance? That's totally untrue, isn't it? I thought the problem was that they can't figure out who anybody is, so they have to make up lies after the fact to suit their unique set of personal animosities.

It almost seems like she must have tried to openly lie to them to snooker them into thinking the admins actually care about Wikipedia's content, or some ridiculous thing like that.

I think what you observe is largely implied by the word «in-credible».

Jonny

No, I dont think such speakers are paid. Unless they are famous, such as Jimbo, Gates, political officials, etc.

Well, he *is* a marketing guy. What's he going to write in an SEO paper, where most people (including his clients) think Wikipedia is wonderful? The only place it is generally accepted that WP is a bit daft is here. For the moment, at least.

Well, that's their objective. And yeah, isn't that why she goes to those things, and writes those papers? To say things like that.

ABOUT ERIC LANDER'S BLOG ENTRY

QUOTE

… but I simply can’t resist the temptation tonight to just address the holier than though attitude practiced by some wikipedians.

Ah! I see he met Durova and JeHochman! (smirk)

QUOTE

So, if you’re a wikipedia volunteer, editor or admin… please listen up. I understand that your time is valuable. Donating endless hours in an effort to improve the world’s most popular reference tool is something that I commend you on. In fact, I am amazed at how much you and your colleagues have managed to do in so very little time.

This being the compliment, before the criticism. Yes, I know this schtick.

QUOTE

It pains me then to know that you despise me with such intensity.

I wonder if he got slammed on wiki before, or if this is just a reaction to the smugness at the SMX conference. Or if he's just fed up with the lectures about how people who try to earn money suck (in wiki think).

QUOTE

Someone as driven, focused and unbiased as you should have the ability to understand and appreciate the role of marketing in modern media.

Hm. Why does he assume that because they police a encyclopedia-com-chatboard all day, that they'd understand marketing? I don't see the link, unless you assume that obsessiveness and control freakishness equals curiosity and intuitiveness.

QUOTE

Sadly, you do not… And you have gone so far as to publicly slam search marketers looking to use your reference tool as an aid.

Well, yeah. He's got that right. Which is why JEH and DUR have no business being at such a meeting unless they had a vastly different (and more kindly) attitude. Towards sales, as well as humans. Clearly, these are overgrown spoiled children who never worried about finances in a serious manner.

QUOTE

Rather than embracing us for our aiding the growth of your tools — you look down upon us as peons worth nothing more than a backhanded compliment when you decide to get a rise out of your bookworm buddies….

I hope he realizes that they do this to everyone, not just SEOs, but "go on..."

QUOTE

I can understand your general willingness to to keep things clean. I can also understand why some would want to game your tools for their own benefit. But, if one man takes advantage of you — do you suddenly look down upon all others? Of course you shouldn’t - but you have and continue to do so.

He's misunderstanding that a wrongdoing inspired their attitude. Their attitude is standalone, and probably predated any wikicrime. They are just plain arrogant people.

QUOTE

The worst part is, you go on this fanatical crusade

Ah! So he *did* get to know Durova (Charge!)

Funny how she managed to offend people, even while she was in person, and probably trying to be reasonable.

QUOTE

to halt all search marketers from accessing your pride and joy — when there are much, much bigger issues at hand.

"Go on..."

QUOTE

If you are serious about building wikipedia out as the de facto information resource online — you had better check yourself. The more you come out and penalize those trying to become involved in your socially driven tool, the more you look foolish.

Three points:

1. This is one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia Review
2. It will never occur to these people (esp these two) that they look foolish.
3. I wonder if he "gets" that this is their general MO, not just only towards SEOs.

QUOTE

Rather than make yourself and other power users of the wiki look like estranged cult members — spread the love. If you continue to bite the hand that feeds you, you will damn well go hungry. And with that, I’m out.

Hm. Interesting. Eric: It is not about the SEOs, it is not about the encyclopedic content. It is about the POWER.

Well, well. It is funny to see what the SEOs *really* think of the dynamic duo of Wiki-SEO-dom. I'm sure he's not along.

I predict at some point, the SEOs will start flocking to Centiare, and inviting Greg to conferences. If Durova goes too, we could sell tickets. Imagine that on Youtube!

DL