Emails show journalist rigged Wikipedia’s naked shorts
Two and a half years ago, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [left] penned an editorial for The Wall Street Journal, warning that widespread stock manipulation schemes – including abusive naked short selling – were threatening the health of America’s financial markets. But it wasn’t published.
“An editor at The Journal asked me to write it, and I told him he wouldn’t be allowed to publish it,” Byrne says. […] The Journal never changed its stance. But last week, the editorial finally saw the light of day at Forbes – after Byrne added a few paragraphs explaining that naked shorting had hastened what could turn out to be the biggest financial crisis since The Great Depression.
[…]
for years, The Journal and so many other news outlets ignored Byrne’s warnings, with some journalists – most notably a Forbes.com columnist and former BusinessWeek reporter named Gary Weiss [below] – painting the Overstock CEO as a raving madman.Byrne has long argued that the press dismissed his views at least in part because Weiss – hiding behind various anonymous accounts – spent years controlling the relevant articles on Wikipedia, the “free online encyclopedia anyone can edit.”
“At some level, you can control the public discourse from Wikipedia,” Byrne says. “No matter what journalists say about the reliability of Wikipedia, they still use it as a resource. I have no doubt that journalists who I discussed [naked shorting] with decided not to do stories after reading Wikipedia – whose treatment [of naked short selling] was completely divorced from reality.”
I found an interesting twist to this story when I used Google to search for Byrne’s article in Forbes. It brought up a bunch of articles, some by Weiss, about Byrne committing fraud. Was this a concerted attack on someone who might limit profits on naked short sells if he was taken seriously, or is Byrne a crook, too, who was attacking those who might stop him? I’ll have to check Wikipedia to find out.
Why woud a Repuke Mouthpiece like the WSJ want to RAIN ON THE PARADE OF WALL STREET CROOKS and PUT A CRIMP INTO THEIR ABILITY TO ***STEAL EVEN MORE, EVEN FASTER*** after fighting so long to get NEARLY ALL REGULATIONS LIFTED ??? Now we know, IN SPADES !!! 700 BILLION WORTH (PROBABLY MORE LIKE A TRILLION, BEFORE IT IS OVER!!!) Quite a haul for the Repukes !!! And so what ???, Some whistle -blower’s story didn’t get published !!!
Don’t forget this, either:
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
I think the fact that Wall street still wants you investing and not selling is a indicator that they are only thinking about self preservation.
Their is no doubt that Wall street wanted a bigger return from the risky sub prime markets and were willing to risk investors money to get it.
That’s not too say many investors were not swayed by the promise of those same returns. To fault a home buyer who’s credit is sub par is a cop out. The bottom line is the credit institution is responsible for lending money to people who can repay back the loans. If they begin to gamble on that just to keep the economy going artificially then its bound to end like it has. You can’t cut corners to get people into houses. They must financially qualify for them. Hoping they will grow a money tree is stupid!
Journalists use wiki?
Not any worthy of the title.
I don’t believe anyone who shorts learned how to do it from Wikipedia.
Therefore, changing the article would make no difference.
This actually goes much deeper than you wrote about, including donations/payoffs from Weiss to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales to let Weiss et al edit Wikipedia as they saw fit around naked short selling, Byrne, etc.
See http://www.deepcapture.com for more.
I consider Wikipedia to be about as authoritative and reliable as my my crazy uncle Zeke.
No.. on second thought, I know that my crazy uncle Zeke is.. well.. crazy. I have no idea of the mental state of the people contributing to Wikipedia.
Honestly, how could anyone rely on the information they read in Wikipedia without verifying it with another more trusted source.
#7 – Steve S
>>Honestly, how could anyone rely on the >>information they read in Wikipedia without
>>verifying it with another more trusted
>>source.
Oh, get stuffed. EVERYBODY uses Wikipedia. Not as the last word on complicated technical issues, or as a source for info on controversial subjects.
But if you want ot know when George Washington served as president or the molecular weight of glucose, what are you going to do? Take out a technical treatise on history or organic chemistry through interlibrary loan?
Pffft.
Everybody uses Wikipedia, and for general factual material, it’s quite accurate.
#8 “But if you want to know when George Washington served as president or the molecular weight of glucose, what are you going to do?”
Hmm, I tested your theory for both examples. Below are two answers that appeared higher in Google than anything from wiki.
So much for your post…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
http://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/Glucose
#9 – O’Furniture
>>So much for your post…
Aw, you get stuffed too.
Sure, you can google and take your chances, or you can just go to Wiki-whatever and get something, that for basic information, is totally adequate.
If you deny that you use Wiki-whatever, you really ARE Paddy O’Pinocchio.
#9 – O’Pinocchio
BTW, I typed “molecular weight of glucose” into google, and the first two entries were TMI; conversions, the atomic weights of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, all kinds of crap I don’t want to know right now.
The first entry that just tells me what the molecular weight of glucose is
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_molecular_weight_of_glucose
wiki-whatever. Just like I said.
#10 “Sure, you can google and take your chances, or you can just go to Wiki-whatever and get something, that for basic information, is totally adequate.”
Both links that appeared higher that I found were superior to the wiki entries.
I NEVER go directly to wiki. I sometimes go there if it appears 1st or 2nd in a search result.
#12 – O’Furniture
>>Both links that appeared higher that I found
>>were superior to the wiki entries.
Aw, give it up, O’Pinocchio. You say they’re “superior”, I say they’re full of extraneous information, if all I’m looking for is the MW of glucose. Or the political parties in Ghana. Or general information about a wide range of things. I don’t always go to wiki-whatever, but for the things it’s useful for (basic summaries, simple facts), it usually beats taking your chances with google.
And anyone who poo-poos Wiki-whatever is a bullshit arist. Try “list of presidents of the united states”, or “demographics of cambodia”. Wiki-whatever is first on the list. There’s a reason for that. So if you know what you’re looking for, and you know Wiki-whatever is the best source, why f&ck around with google? It’s just an extra step.
#13 :Wiki-whatever is first on the list. There’s a reason for that. So if you know what you’re looking for, and you know Wiki-whatever is the best source,”
Wiki is too easy to introduce bad data into. I wouldn’t and don’t use info found on it unless it is for something totally trivial and noncritical.
#14 – O’Furniture
>>I wouldn’t and don’t use info found on it
>>unless it is for something totally trivial
>>and noncritical.
Seems to me that makes up most of what you look for, O’Pinocchio.
TRUTH HURTS.
And those that EXPRESS the truth, generally get STOMPED ON.
I just went to Wikipedia looking for info on American politics and they covered it pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turd
#17 – Big
Great link! Especially http://tinyurl.com/3ptvs5
# 8 Mister Mustard said,
“#7 – Steve S
>>Honestly, how could anyone rely on the >>information they read in Wikipedia without
>>verifying it with another more trusted
>>source.
Oh, get stuffed. EVERYBODY uses Wikipedia. Not as the last word on complicated technical issues, or as a source for info on controversial subjects.”
Wow.
You are the first Wiki Zealot I have come across. Calm down. It is not a religion or a political party. It is just a source of information that almost ‘anyone’ can contribute to.
I was only trying to point out that that someone would look pretty stupid relying (the key word is Rely) on information obtained from Wikipedia alone as a basis in making an important decision. By all means, use it for entertainment or as a convenient introduction into a subject. Just don’t bet the farm on information someone has entered into Wikipedia.
Please, continue to take your meds.
#19 – Steve
>>I was only trying to point out that that
>>someone would look pretty stupid relying (the
>>key word is Rely) on information obtained from
>>Wikipedia alone as a basis in making an
>>important decision.
I agree. That’s why I’ve never done it. And I don’t know anyone who has done it either. I suppose there must be people like that somewhere, but I’ve never met them.
But as a quick and dirty intro to something, Wiki-whatever is about as good as it gets.
#18 – Yeah, I enjoyed that too.
For those with an hour or so to spare give this a view
http://www.businessjive.com/
Would explain what happened monday morning
Had to file Better Business Bureau complaints against Overstock.com a few years ago. I remember this article coming out around that time.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/03/overstock_issues/page3.html
On August 11, for example, Byrne hosted a teleconference with analysts to attack a group of people that he alleged were short selling Overstock’s stock and causing damage “in the high hundreds of millions of dollars.” To describe the call as odd would not do it justice. The far-ranging conference had Byrne discuss everything from his techniques for taping calls with reporters to whether or not he had done cocaine. Somehow, this all had to do with the conspiracy to destroy Overstock.
“It was the most bizarre hour and change I have ever witnessed on the Street,” said Jeff Mathews, a hedge fund manager and close Overstock watcher, during a TV appearance.
A propos of lazy journalists using Wikipedia instead of doing real research, I found an interesting snippet in the British satirical weekly “Private Eye” and wrote about it on my blog:
http://www.theblockheadblog.co.uk/2008/10/bad-news-for-ugc-from-private-eye.html