AntiSocial Media, Slideshow Presentation by Judd Bagley Options

[Kato]

Here's Judd Bagley's slideshow presentation for anyone who might have missed it. The early part of his lecture covers the Naked Short Selling Financial Issue, gradually moving onto blogging problems, and finally detailing his experiences with Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia stuff is a must see.

You can cut in at any point of the presentation / lecture using the sidebar.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

*Update: Blog post about the lecture is here:

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=158

LECTURE ON ABUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY STOCK MANIPULATORS

I recently had the honor of lecturing a group of business students at the University of Texas, on the topic of abuse of social media by stock manipulators. I’ve merged the recording of the lecture with my slide presentation and make it available for you here.

I should also note that I found this experience to be a very positive one, and would welcome similar opportunities in the future. Please contact me via email at: antisocialmedia@gmail.com

[Cedric]

Here's Judd Bagley's slideshow presentation for anyone who might have missed it. The early part of his lecture covers the Naked Short Selling Financial Issue, gradually moving onto blogging problems, and finally detailing his experiences with Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia stuff is a must see.

You can cut in at any point of the presentation / lecture using the sidebar.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

I watched this yesterday, and it is definitely worth a view (the Wikipedia stuff starts at slide 52, if you are already familiar with what NSS is and who the DTCC are). As noted elsewhere, some of the details are missing, but it provides a good summary of the whole Mannisox scandal.

[dogbiscuit]

I was intrigued how the audience coped with it. I wasn't sure of what the target of the lecture was, but it did get rather Wikipedian at times. It is not something I'd share widely cos it seems you need to be into it, and in fact I thought the most interesting part was the Naked Short Selling bringing down the banks - big important real world stuff of which the Wikipedia element was just one small part of a co-ordinated attack across many different media. Perhaps what went unsaid was "Why was Wikipedia deemed to be so important to require such a significant effort by Weiss?" (which I think is the point that I got worried about the whole Wikipedia thing a couple of years ago).

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

[GlassBeadGame]

I have gone some time with the task "Form an opinion about JB and ASM" on my to-do list. There are a number of reasons for this. The principal one is that, like much of Wikipedia, it requires a detailed foray in the substance of topics that offer me little appeal. A Republican PR guy, an internet start up capitalist, the financial media, pet theories about the market, none of these were exactly my cup of tea. So I only delved in enough to follow the discussion. Wordbomb, Bagley, Byrne seemed to have a good understanding the dysfunctional nature of WP, the use of sock-puppets, and conflicts of interest. But I don't really have a real opinion.

So I decided, despite my dislike of getting information in non-text mediums, to watch the full presentation start to finish. Maybe I could knock one off my to-do list.

The quality of the presentation was excellent. I was entertained and informed. Bagley presented a coherent narrative of the social media, naked short selling, Weiss, and SlimVirgin. I was also convinced and relieved that the means that Bagley employed to sort out the identities of Weiss and his various puppets was merely clever and not some kind of evil black arts.

I more or less accept Bagley's narrative of Wikipedia's role. Weiss launches a wide social media campaign using false identities to advance his works and ideas. I maybe even accept that Weiss was in the pay of the DTCC, although this is less convincing. Weiss finds his way to Wikipedia. Makes sense to me. He falls in with SlimVirgin when they share a common interest in using "antisemitism" as way to isolate any opostion to their seperate and somewhat diverse editing interests. Such alliances are the makings Wikipedia dysfunction as I have come to understand it. I'm in the stands cheering when Bagley uses analysis of editing patterns and ip-account editing shifts to nail Weiss and Slim.

It hangs together as presented. It makes sense. And that is the problem. It works without the Byrne account of himself and Slim at Cambridge. I expected that somehow that this little episode would be pivotal in understanding the story. But the story works without recourse to that vignette. This reduces the Byrne account of Slimvirgin at Cambridge to a coincidence. Mind you it is not that I don't believe in coincidences. But really, what are chances?

[Kato]

So I decided, despite my dislike of getting information in non-text mediums, to watch the full presentation start to finish. Maybe I could knock one off my to-do list.

Well I loved the format, and find these things much easier to follow than simple text on a screen. It had a voice and appropriate text.

If I knew how, I'd be knocking them up myself to explain various aspects of WP.

[WordBomb]

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

As I've listened back to my recording of the lecture, I can identify at least 100 things I wish I'd done differently (better).

But as far as its reception...here's what I gather:
1- I finished up about five minutes past the end of class, but everybody (as in, 100% of those present at the beginning) remained in their seats.
2- When it was over, the professor said, aloud, that is was "very suspenseful."
3- About a half-dozen students approached me afterward with some very insightful questions relating to finer points of the lecture.

Based solely on those three observations, I'd venture that it was well-received.

The real test should be to see whether I get any other invitations.

[Cla68]

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

As I've listened back to my recording of the lecture, I can identify at least 100 things I wish I'd done differently (better).

But as far as its reception...here's what I gather:
1- I finished up about five minutes past the end of class, but everybody (as in, 100% of those present at the beginning) remained in their seats.
2- When it was over, the professor said, aloud, that is was "very suspenseful."
3- About a half-dozen students approached me afterward with some very insightful questions relating to finer points of the lecture.

Based solely on those three observations, I'd venture that it was well-received.

The real test should be to see whether I get any other invitations.

If the WMF was smart they would invite you (and pay you) to give your presentation to their full staff and boardmembers at their headquarters.

[WordBomb]

It hangs together as presented. It makes sense. And that is the problem. It works without the Byrne account of himself and Slim at Cambridge. I expected that somehow that this little episode would be pivotal in understanding the story. But the story works without recourse to that vignette.

I didn't include it because in my opinion, the Cambridge story only serves two purposes:
1- To shed some light on the nature and background of SlimVirgin
2- As a worthy follow-up to the question: "Now do you want to hear something really strange?"

[Emperor]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

[Piperdown]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

[Bottled_Spider]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

Activemeter is used. Very common. And completely harmless. Everyone should have one and call it a friend.

I liked the presentation very much. The audience can be heard in the background, but it's non-intrusive (unlike the tracking pixel, eh?! Just teasing!) and quiet, and adds to the atmosphere. The part of me that listens to a lot of audience-sourced music bootlegs ever-so-slightly missed the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

Despite that, it was great. I can imagine Weiss and SlimVirgin enjoyed it too, and took notes throughout, in-between the teeth-grinding and the strangled grunts. Nice!

[dtobias]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - We Have No Secrets
via FoxyTunes

[Bottled_Spider]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

I would imagine so, though what I tend to listen to doesn't attract many teenage girls. Damn.

[dtobias]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

I would imagine so, though what I tend to listen to doesn't attract many teenage girls. Damn.

Try a live edition of the "Pottercast" podcast about Harry Potter, and listen at any point where they mention the kid who plays Potter in the movies.

----------------
Now playing: Meat Loaf - Paradise By The Dashboard Light
via FoxyTunes

[WordBomb]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

[Random832]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

To be fair - having one on a blog or website is socially acceptable, putting one in an _email_ is not - it's even considered dodgy for commercial mailers to do it.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Piperdown]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

To be fair - having one on a blog or website is socially acceptable, putting one in an _email_ is not - it's even considered dodgy for commercial mailers to do it.

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

WP had no problem with that. Slimmy kept her adminnies for years after.

Good thing Judd suspected he was dealing with a scumbag and did his own auditing of that deceptive process.

[Random832]

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

We don't actually know it was direct. I believe on WikBack she claimed it was forwarded to "other admins", which would imply it was not direct, as MM never was an admin.

[WordBomb]

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

We don't actually know it was direct. I believe on WikBack she claimed it was forwarded to "other admins", which would imply it was not direct, as MM never was an admin.

In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody.

Hmmm.

I don't believe either version.

[Hell Freezes Over]

In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody.

Here's our exchange about whom I forwarded your e-mails to. This has been referred to so many times, including in the ArbCom case, that I'm assuming you have no objection to me posting it in full. You seem not to be able to summarize it accurately

Scroll down to see the first e-mail. Becky Beckett = Wordbomb = Judd Bagley.

From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: to get some perspective...
To: Becky Beckett <mulieribusfare@gmail.com>


I have sent nothing to Gary Weiss.

I'd appreciate it if you would correspond with FloNight about this.
I've handed the entire matter over to her, complete with our
correspondence, and that means I'm no longer dealing with it.

Sarah


On 7/21/06, Becky Beckett <mulieribusfare@gmail.com> wrote:


July 19, 1:54am, I sent you two documents, as per your request for evidence.

I'll explain how if you insist, but the bottom line is somehow Gary Weiss
tried to open one of the two documents at 4:40pm and again at 4:44pm that
day. I know this to be the case, Sarah, so please don't tell me it isn't. I
guess there are a few ways it might have happened, but the easiest
explanation is that you gave it to him.

Take another look at that email and you'll notice I asked you to keep it
confidential, not that I should have had to say that, I suppose.

Is that standard procedure?



On 7/21/06, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which e-mail are you talking about, and to whom was it sent?
>
> On 7/21/06, Becky Beckett < mulieribusfare@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is it standard Wikipedia practice for someone in your spot to forward
> > ostensibly confidential email to another user, especially when the
content
> > of the email deals directly with that user?
> >
> > I'm still trying to get a handle on how disappointing it was to see that
> > you'd done that. And I'm still trying to understand how you can justify
it.
> > And I'm still trying to decide what should be done about it.
> >
> > Any input?