Seeing A Bigger Picture, What you have been deconstructing at Wikipedia Review... Options

[dtobias]

With respect, it explains but it doesn't analyse the issue, which makes it rather unhelpful. And the problem is not with others' firefoxes, it is with your webserver reporting an incorrect MIME type, something that is very easy to fix.

More on the MIME-type issue can be found in my site here.

[Pwok]

Yikes. You're quite sure you're not Lir, then?

I don't know who these other people are. Look, I have a real name in real life. I used the name "Pwok" when I signed up here because I seem to recall something in the sign-up process that asked people to use their Wikipedia sign-on. On Wikipedia, "Pwok" was truly random. I typed four keys and that's what came out. I've never had any sign on here other than the one I use now. As for IP addresses, I use Comcast, which assigns dynamic IP addresses. One of these days you'll see a different IP address for me, but it won't be because I changed it.

I'm certainly not saying you have to like him or anything like that, but please, try to sound a bit less accusatory

Okay, I'll try. To be fair, CEO Byrne is reaping the whirlwind from me after so many years of my dealing with some of the most elegant white trash this country has to offer, its corporate elite. The average homless vagrant is more honest and more interesting and more deserving than the average corporate executive, and I say that as someone who once took a homeless vagrant into my own house for a month and then got him a place to live and furnished the apartment, all at my own expense. The only thing that corporate America had on that guy is that executives smell better and dress better.

And to be really fair, that elegant white trash is quite well represented in the financial community. I could rip exit holes the size of the Holland Tunnel in that side of things, too. One of the things I'd say is that, if you're going to pick a financial scandal to go batshit about, this naked shorting thing is a fly on a cow's back. For the last 30 years, the story of the increasinly unproductive U.S. economy has been one of escalating financial scandals: Penn Central RR & Continental Illinois Bank and stupid farm lending in the '70s, commercial real estate and S&Ls in the '80s, the dot-com boom in the '90s, Bush's attempt to give the banks $40+ billion a year by "privatizing" one-third of Social Security in the early '00s, and now the mother of all scandals, the residential real estate meltdown.

The residential real estate meltown has a 50-50 chance of bringing on a second depression, '30s style. That's the one to worry about. Now the "news" media are cluing into it because their editors have mortgages too, and their personal wealth is at stake. Too late, as always. Five years ago, I was telling people to watch out for what was coming. I pulled the plug on the Internet stocks in early 1999. In 1990, by contrast, I had a hard time getting a job in the financial sector because I was thought to be crazily optimistic about what was coming. And when Clinton's first budget got approved, I was one of seven people in a room of 150 who raised their hands when asked who thought it would eliminate the federal deficit. In early 1993, I passed a memo around the company predicting budget surpluses by the end of 1990s. Five years ago, I started telling people that we'd have a depression that would make your teeth rattle. The monetary authorities are scared shitless about that, and if we're lucky (which I hope) they'll be able to patch it together with baling wire, twine, and mirrors, and instead we'll be like Japan in the '90s.

In the midst of all this, naked shorting is a nothingburger of an issue. It is a garden-variety penny-ante fraud, if that. Overstock hardly qualifies as a sympathetic victim in my eyes. A tempest it might be, but it's a tempest in a teapot, not the whole china cabinet like CEO Byrne would have us believe. If anyone wants to get exercised about the stock market, what they ought to worry about is the so-called "plunge protection team" that's been keeping the stock market alive since 1998. And if they really want to delve into it, they should notice that the average ROE of an American corporation has gone from 11% to about 18-19% since the 1970s, and that it's come straight out of the pockets of the employees who are supposed to buy all the shit. Then look at debt levels. Then look at the 1920s. Gawwwwwleee, Sgt. Carter, you mean ...?

This post has been edited by Pwok: Sun 2nd September 2007, 4:44pm

[gomi]

Am I the only one who finds Somey's continued use of admin tools to post checkuser results on dissident voices disturbing?

....
Yes, that's a good idea. Publicly, it should be all the time, or never.

You are suggesting that Somey told us who Pwok is. He did not. He told us, in a very limited way, who he is probably not. Far from the same thing. Other than the fact that he knows Pwok's IP address and you do not, I can't see what is disturbing.

I'm certainly not saying you have to like him or anything like that, but please, try to sound a bit less accusatory

Okay, I'll try. To be fair, CEO Byrne is reaping the whirlwind from me after so many years of my dealing with some of the most elegant white trash this country has to offer, its corporate elite.

Also, do try to remember that this is Wikipedia Review, not Overstock.com Review or Patrick Byrne Review. Members here have diverse political and social views. You are entitled to your opinion, as is Mr. Byrne, but this forum is not infinitely available to express them except as they bear on Wikipedia.

[Pwok]

Also, do try to remember that this is Wikipedia Review, not Overstock.com Review or Patrick Byrne Review. Members here have diverse political and social views. You are entitled to your opinion, as is Mr. Byrne, but this forum is not infinitely available to express them except as they bear on Wikipedia.

Whoa there, cowboy! Check the history of this thread. I am not the one who brought up Overstock.com and its situation. I merely reacted when that company's CEO posted here about it, and unlike a lot of people who discuss business and finance I actually have the background to do it reasonably intelligently. I don't blame you if you don't want Overstock and naked shorting discussed here, but I am not the one to complain to about that. Go check how many threads I've started that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. I think you will find the number to be zero.

You are suggesting that Somey told us who Pwok is. He did not. He told us, in a very limited way, who he is probably not. Far from the same thing. Other than the fact that he knows Pwok's IP address and you do not, I can't see what is disturbing.

Not that I especially care, but I'd note that this happened only when I harshly criticized someone who the administrator likes. So, yeah, I can see why some eyebrows went up.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Sun 2nd September 2007, 6:09pm

[Somey]

I'm still concerned about this whole "dissident" thing. Most of the people who run this board - including myself - are quite firmly in the anti-corporate, non-capitalist camp, aren't we? We have a member who calls himself a "Marxist," one who calls himself a "communist," and several who are clearly socialists... And then there are quite a few neo-cons, and some businessmen. I myself am a businessman, I just happen to be a left-leaning one. And while I do own some stock, let's just say I don't consider myself a "trader" - in fact, I was thinking about cashing it all in in the next couple of months, and using the profits I've made to buy something useful, like a box of band-aids. (Except that I don't think the profits are going to quite cover a whole box!)

Regardless, one's preferred economic system (or feelings about capitalism) shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they can feel welcome here. There's a good argument for the idea that a pro-Wikipedia member is a "dissident" in our specific context, but none of the people involved in this latest dust-up really fit that description... do they?

[Pwok]

I suggest that no one go batshit. CEO Byrne introduced the Overstock.com dispute here, and I told him exactly what I thought of him, his company, and the dispute. It's not any more complicated than that. I actually think that, in Overstock's case, whoever edited the Wikipedia article did a good job of it. Of course, I'm not sure why individual companies have articles on Wikipedia, but that's a separate issue.

[Kato]

I'm not sure why individual companies have articles on Wikipedia, but that's a separate issue.

...and I'm sure our own Gregory Kohs would have some thoughts on that subject.

[JohnA]

Having actually seen the Bloomberg news item to which Patrick Byrne referred, he makes it crystal clear in that programme that he has no objection at all to short selling or short sellers.

His beef is with naked short selling, which is a fraudulent trade also known as "failure to deliver". The clear effect of naked short selling is to drive down the share price of the stock, causing damage to the target company's ability to raise capital and adversely affecting their credit rating.

Now, that isn't to say that overstock.com doesn't have problems in the market, but I'm sure Patrick Byrne will have no quarrel with questions about that point. He might tell us that overstock is on a much more secure financial footing than it was.

The larger issue is the use or abuse of social media sites, of which Wikipedia is clearly the elephant in the room in this regard. Wikipedia's reputation as a supposedly neutral arbiter and disseminator of factual information is, as we well know, a sham and a mirage. The abuse by Gary Weiss through a network of sockpuppets and with help from on high in Wikipedia is the next scandal after Slimvirgin is finally nailed.

The ultimate issue, the Tyrannosaurus Rex in the room if you will, is the amorality of Web 2.0 with regard to such things as social responsibility, privacy, historical accuracy, scholarship, democracy and civil liberties.

Patrick Byrne is right in the sense that Wikipedia (and by extension WR) are part of a larger question about the real nature of the World Wide Web as a disseminator of information, and what citizens across the world should do about it.

Wikipedia is clearly too important to be left to the Gary Weisses, Slimvirgins and Jimbo Waleses of this world. That's why due diligence and investigation is clearly important.

WR can and has already made history. We should make some more.

[Somey]

Yeah, what he said!

Not that I especially care, but I'd note that this happened only when I harshly criticized someone who the administrator likes. So, yeah, I can see why some eyebrows went up.

Well, you're new here... so it might be best if I explain a few things...

Gary Weiss has at least two, and possibly four, accounts here, none of which are suspended or banned. So, any time someone criticizes Overstock or Patrick, Wordbomb (aka Judd B.) assumes that the critic is one of three people, most likely Weiss himself. As the Wikipedia folks will tell you, Wordbomb has a long list of Weiss IP's, editing patterns, e-mail addresses, site-specific aliases, things like that. This is all considered "cyber-stalking" by the WP folks, but if you work for a company and some guy comes along and is that bound and determined to bring your company down, what are you going to do? Just sit there and watch it happen?

So, there have been a couple of instances in which Wordbomb has posted something publicly accusing a WR member of being Gary Weiss. That's not something we like to see, especially if it's unwarranted. This time I thought I'd head him off at the pass, so to speak - not leastwise because other people might have assumed the same thing, simply because of the fact that Gary Weiss exists.

Long story short, as long as ol' Gary is out there, almost anyone who criticizes Overstock will be suspected of being him. This is why Gary is such a nincompoop - he's so over the top about it that he's created a situation in which not only is he dismissible, but everyone who agrees with him is also in danger of getting the same reaction!

Pwok has posted some very good stuff on WR in the past few weeks, and he doesn't deserve that kind of suspicion, even if he did get a little nasty there... As long as he bears in mind the fact that Patrick is a member here too, and that we don't like to see members attacking other members (at least not publicly), then everything should be just fine.

[Emperor]

In the midst of all this, naked shorting is a nothingburger of an issue. It is a garden-variety penny-ante fraud, if that. Overstock hardly qualifies as a sympathetic victim in my eyes. A tempest it might be, but it's a tempest in a teapot, not the whole china cabinet like CEO Byrne would have us believe. If anyone wants to get exercised about the stock market, what they ought to worry about is the so-called "plunge protection team" that's been keeping the stock market alive since 1998. And if they really want to delve into it, they should notice that the average ROE of an American corporation has gone from 11% to about 18-19% since the 1970s, and that it's come straight out of the pockets of the employees who are supposed to buy all the shit. Then look at debt levels. Then look at the 1920s. Gawwwwwleee, Sgt. Carter, you mean ...?

Nice post.

Patrick and Overstock should be happy they're making anything at all. They're just a crappy Amazon knock-off with sleazier advertising.

I agree pushing American workers into debt, overworking them, undereducating them, etc. is a recipe for disaster. But private businesses and even large corporations are not the problem. The government is going to keep taking more and more, coming up with more and more ridiculous programs, until there is nothing left. By the time I finish paying for those morons who took out ridiculous loans, and other morons to build new houses below sea level, and millions and millions of bureacratic nitwits to process all the mess, how am I supposed to start a new business?

[Jonny Cache]

I'm still concerned about this whole "dissident" thing. Most of the people who run this board — including myself — are quite firmly in the anti-corporate, non-capitalist camp, aren't we? We have a member who calls himself a "Marxist," one who calls himself a "communist," and several who are clearly socialists … And then there are quite a few neo-cons, and some businessmen. I myself am a businessman, I just happen to be a left-leaning one. And while I do own some stock, let's just say I don't consider myself a "trader" — in fact, I was thinking about cashing it all in in the next couple of months, and using the profits I've made to buy something useful, like a box of band-aids. (Except that I don't think the profits are going to quite cover a whole box!)

Regardless, one's preferred economic system (or feelings about capitalism) shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they can feel welcome here. There's a good argument for the idea that a pro-Wikipedia member is a "dissident" in our specific context, but none of the people involved in this latest dust-up really fit that description … do they?

I carry my Diss-Identity Card with me at all times — it's the only way DuBois in da Hood will let me step across the greenline onto maize & blue turf.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 2nd September 2007, 6:42pm

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Most traders do not set out to fail to deliver. But my understanding is a stock trade is still settled after 4 days, and that considerable pit trading still goes on in the US equity exchanges. In this situation, naked short selling is bound to happen, because humans make mistakes. And no one has really explained how market makers can operate without naked shorting unless they were to make greater spreads - in which case there goes liquidity!

I absolutely agree that setting out to naked short sell is market manipulation, but that news report doesn't really provide any evidence of that.

[Pwok]

Well, you're new here... so it might be best if I explain a few things...

Gary Weiss has at least two, and possibly four, accounts here, none of which are suspended or banned. So, any time someone criticizes Overstock or Patrick, Wordbomb (aka Judd B.) assumes that the critic is one of three people, most likely Weiss himself. As the Wikipedia folks will tell you, Wordbomb has a long list of Weiss IP's, editing patterns, e-mail addresses, site-specific aliases, things like that. This is all considered "cyber-stalking" by the WP folks, but if you work for a company and some guy comes along and is that bound and determined to bring your company down, what are you going to do? Just sit there and watch it happen?

So, there have been a couple of instances in which Wordbomb has posted something publicly accusing a WR member of being Gary Weiss. That's not something we like to see, especially if it's unwarranted. This time I thought I'd head him off at the pass, so to speak - not leastwise because other people might have assumed the same thing, simply because of the fact that Gary Weiss exists.

Long story short, as long as ol' Gary is out there, almost anyone who criticizes Overstock will be suspected of being him. This is why Gary is such a nincompoop - he's so over the top about it that he's created a situation in which not only is he dismissible, but everyone who agrees with him is also in danger of getting the same reaction!

Pwok has posted some very good stuff on WR in the past few weeks, and he doesn't deserve that kind of suspicion, even if he did get a little nasty there... As long as he bears in mind the fact that Patrick is a member here too, and that we don't like to see members attacking other members (at least not publicly), then everything should be just fine.

Hey, I'm not upset. You've got a point about the member v. member stuff, and I think I've dialed it back a tad as it concerns CEO Bryne himself (as opposed to the issue he's flogging). As for the rest, I understand. I've got a little comment board attached to the site I created about that Matt Sanchez character whose biography on Wikipedia triggered my pissing match with them. From time to time some whackjob comes by and goes crazy so I have to ban them. It's not something I like to do, but occasionally it's got to be done.

By the way, what is "Wordbomb?" As you said, I am new.

Most traders do not set out to fail to deliver. But my understanding is a stock trade is still settled after 4 days, and that considerable pit trading still goes on in the US equity exchanges.

Pit trading is quickly vanishing as the exchanges go all electronic. I think it's a problem, because one of these years we'll see a virus or just a lock up among computer programs. I'm no expert in trading mechanics, but I think I recall that settlements got speeded up to one day sometime in the 1990s.


This post has been edited by Pwok: Sun 2nd September 2007, 6:53pm

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Pit trading is quickly vanishing as the exchanges go all electronic. I think it's a problem, because one of these years we'll see a virus or just a lock up among computer programs. I'm no expert in trading mechanics, but I think I recall that settlements got speeded up to one day sometime in the 1990s.

"One of these years"? Lock ups have already happened, you know... Albeit I'm not aware of anything all *that* serious happening. A virus would not be plausible on LIFFE connect though, so far as I can tell. Don't know about anything else!

LIFFE went all electronic in 98 btw. A very different art. And I'm now looking forward to a new allocation algorithm on swissy coming in later this month, it's already been introduced on the short sterlings but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

[Nathan]

By the way, what is "Wordbomb?" As you said, I am new.

WordBomb is Wikipedia Review user WordBomb, aka Judd Bagley of Overstock.com (explanation here in second paragraph)

[Somey]

By the way, what is "Wordbomb?" As you said, I am new.

Go back to the first two paragraphs of the first post in this thread - it's all right there.

Or, you could try the Cla68 version... However, I wouldn't recommend getting too deeply into the history of this dispute, unless you like it when your head starts to really, really hurt.

[Patrick Byrne]

I'll address two points in one post.



Vandal says:

It isn't practical to ensure that it is possible to borrow what is being sold, one just has to assume that it is. Inevitably this leads to occasional naked shorting.

That can be differentiated from deliberate naked short selling with no intention to settle - but there is little evidence of this happening...

I absolutely agree that setting out to naked short sell is market manipulation, but that news report doesn't really provide any evidence of that.

In fact, Vandal, the SEC hired an economist, Leslie Boni, to study that very question. She was unique in that she was granted access to a great deal more data than other researchers have ever been allowed. She used it to test the hypothesis that these unsettled trades are arising out of "random human error" as some say (I call it "The Dog Ate My Stock Certificate Defense"). If it were truly random human error, then these errors would be spread across the market like a smooth layer of peanut butter, right? In fact, however, they are heavily concentrated in a comparitively small number of stocks, which is inconsistent with the hypoethsis that they are random, and consistent with the hypoethsis that they are deliberate, or "strategic" (unless one is going to postulate the existence of dogs smart enough to eat only certificates of high neg rebate stocks).

Strategic delivery failures in U.S. equity markets
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...f955d51c395a8fe


Pwok says, "CEO Byrne introduced the Overstock.com dispute here, and I told him exactly what I thought of him, his company, and the dispute. "

You make my point for me once again, Pwok. Other than the introductory disclaimer identifying myself I have done everything possible to divorce this dispute from Overstock. The post to which I linked does not even mention Overstock. The fact is that so far you have refused to engage this subject beyond the facile bromides and knee-jerk insults one sees on a Yahoo message board. Good luck with that.

Patrick

[Unrepentant Vandal]

I don't have access to that paper (I did have an athens login not so long ago due to some help I gave a university, but no longer). Could you mirror it for a day or so?

[LamontStormstar]

and every single post, from admins and lesser mortals alike, would have the IP address from where it was posted displayed in the corner of the post itself.

So then Wikipedia could track every poster.

Everyone would use TOR, proxies, or at least switch to a nonstandard ISP (like a free one) to post. Most would not post at all.

Daniel, Greg, Somey, Whoever — Help !!!

All those years of maths and I just never learned to deal with numbers that had $, £, ¥, €, ¤, ad ∞ in front. Could somebody please ∑arise this stuff for phiduciary idiots like me?

TIA¬CREF …

Jonny

This is a fine 25 minute Bloomberg Special report that explains it clearly and simply. Some with firefox say they have trouble viewing it, but it works on mine.

http://cdn.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv

With respect, it explains but it doesn't analyse the issue, which makes it rather unhelpful. And the problem is not with others' firefoxes, it is with your webserver reporting an incorrect MIME type, something that is very easy to fix.

I posted a link earlier that explains it and there's no crap that takes a long time to download. Just stuff that takes a couple hours to read, but it does explain it.

[LamontStormstar]

As far as Wikipedia goes, yes, those pages are poorly written nonsense because a fellow named Gary Weiss controls them. Gary is protected by Slim Virgin. The rest can be learned about within this site.

I am not going to address the issues about our company here, but the general topic of naked short selling and its effect on American companies can be researched here:

Well you should address it here. Who tried to kill your company with naked short selling and how is Gary Weiss involved?


Why is your company unsure if it wants to be an online retailer or an online auction site? Why haven't you tried to fix the problem with the ebay-style feedback system? One fix is to take off the rating values and have it be pure comments and let the person who receives the comment be able to reply a second time if the feedback-leaver does a follow-up. If you ever want to compete with the online auction sites you should combine the retailer and auction aspect into a single search to gradually get more and more auction stuff to replace the online retailer aspect as at this point your selection as small. Maybe put the online retailer aspect into a single auction account that just used buy-it-now prices and let it get feedback.

I realize I'm not a rich CEO, though.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sun 2nd September 2007, 8:46pm