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

[dtobias]

I see both Judd and Slim as rather sneaky, underhanded, manipulative types more interested in promoting their own agendas than in openly and straightforwardly exploring the facts. Both can get highly indignant (and sometimes schoolmarmish) over parts of the other's behavior that they can pick apart and ruthlessly skewer, but will clam up when it comes to responding to uneasy questions about their own behavior. But at least they're finally now actually participating in a frank discussion in a venue without clique buddies to censor anything they don't like.

WordBomb: Wasn't it a dirty trick to put links in your e-mails that purport to go to Wikipedia user pages but actually go to pages in your own site or blog?

Slim: Wasn't it an extreme overreaction on your part to get WordBomb summarily banned and then highly demonized for the next few years, with all of the points he was trying to make declared to be "Bagley attack memes" and vigorously suppressed on-wiki, including via the BADSITES concept?

[WordBomb]

I see both Judd and Slim as rather sneaky, underhanded, manipulative types more interested in promoting their own agendas than in openly and straightforwardly exploring the facts. Both can get highly indignant (and sometimes schoolmarmish) over parts of the other's behavior that they can pick apart and ruthlessly skewer, but will clam up when it comes to responding to uneasy questions about their own behavior.

Everything above is opinion -- and thus not worth arguing over -- until the part about my clamming up when it comes to responding to uneasy questions. That's just not true. I'll talk about all of this all day long. That said, I do tend to get minimalist when discussing it here on WR, since it's all been said so many times and I hate to subject everybody to the minutiae over and over again.

But at least they're finally now actually participating in a frank discussion in a venue without clique buddies to censor anything they don't like.

That's very true. I should not have attacked SV last night as I did. At least she's willing to talk about it. That's very admirable, particularly given the mostly hostile crowd here. Slim, I apologize for that.

WordBomb: Wasn't it a dirty trick to put links in your e-mails that purport to go to Wikipedia user pages but actually go to pages in your own site or blog?

No, it was not a dirty trick, in my opinion. To understand why I did it, it might help to understand the prevailing circumstances: I knew with certainty that email sent to SlimVirgin was opened by Gary Weiss. I was fairly certain I knew what that meant -- SlimVirgin forwarded it to Weiss. But Occam's Razor, which I referenced earlier, would suggest that the simplest solution was that SlimVirgin was Gary Weiss. In fact, that seemed to explain a lot of things in those earliest days, particularly the way SlimVirgin appeared out of nowhere to ban me, and the way she said over and over that all the evidence I'd amassed and sent to her proving what's now completely obvious "didn't amount to much" (or something like that). The disguised link was my way of ruling out the possibility that SV was actually Gary Weiss. I didn't give a fig for Slim's IP address...as long as it wasn't 151.202.102.139.

Dirty trick? No.

Resourceful? Yes.

[Hell Freezes Over]

But at least they're finally now actually participating in a frank discussion in a venue without clique buddies to censor anything they don't like.

That's very true. I should not have attacked SV last night as I did. At least she's willing to talk about it. That's very admirable, particularly given the mostly hostile crowd here. Slim, I apologize for that.

Thank you. I apologize again for my tone when I replied.

My request is that you very carefully check anything you say about me in future. Your claim in this thread, for example, that, "In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody," isn't correct. I was always clear with you that I'd forwarded your e-mails to others, including ArbCom.

Did that include Mantanmoreland? I honestly can't remember. I have nothing in my gmail archive showing I did, and I usually don't delete gmails, so that suggests I didn't. But I can't rule it out, though I can say with certainty that I had no idea at that point that MM might be GW, except for your claim, and I really didn't care who he was. I was more concerned about your claims that he was sockpuppeting. I handed the whole issue over to FloNight pretty quickly and left it to her to decide what to do about the sockpuppetry. Then Fred Bauder stepped in and warned MM (I had forwarded Fred some of your e-mails, and I think you wrote to him too), and that was that, at least as far as the early socks were concerned.

[gomi]

My request is that you very carefully check anything you say about me in future.

Slim, this venue does not really reward Wiki-style nano-parsing of people's statements. This is conversational, and it really doesn't work to try to turn things into a venue for "very careful". WordBomb or anyone else can say what he wants, which is his impression of the conversation. No particular care is required.

I was always clear with you that I'd forwarded your e-mails to others, including ArbCom.

As an aside, I find it laughable that it is offense worthy of banning, stoning, or being drawn-and-quartered to publish an email sent to you by a WP admin, but an admin can forward an email on to a large, provably porous mailing list of people without a care. Another aspect of the Wikipedia Reality Distortion Field™, I guess.

For my part, I think that WordBomb's method of tracking his email was very clever, very pertinent to the situation, and well-justified. Oh, and most definitively not "spyware", and not even worse than what Google does to me 1000 times a day. But that's just me.

It has changed radically. It's much more of a serious criticism site now. I don't want to give examples of previous claims made about me (or else Glassbeadgame will start posting again about how "oh, poor me" doesn't "work here"), but suffice to say they were ridiculous at best, often hurtful, and sometimes creepy.

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

[Hell Freezes Over]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

And that's not even to get into the hurtful and creepy stuff.

I really don't want to say any more about it. Suffice to say, this site has changed.

[Cla68]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

And that's not even to get into the hurtful and creepy stuff.

I really don't want to say any more about it. Suffice to say, this site has changed.

I don't think that me, or Gracenotes, DanT, AlecMcConroy, or any of the others were advocating the allowance of hyperlinks linking directly to those kind of personal attacks. The thing is, though, you and the same group of admins (Jossi, ElinorD, Crum375, Jayjg, etc) were advocating a blanket ban of all criticism sites, no matter what the reason. That's crossing the line into censorship. Do you agree that you went too far? Also, you haven't answered my other question about the mailing list.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 5th March 2009, 2:00am