Delingpole On Wiki Manipulation

James Delingpole on Wiki manipulation

“If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from  the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.”

Which is just what we said a while back

here and here.

You get the scoop here…

The Devious Web (Correction)…

I notice that Gary Weiss commented on Patrick Byrne’ post on this blog, describing the post as a sample of  obsessive behavior about naked short selling.

I have nothing to say to that, except that people who’ve had to battle a number of foes can sometimes become what’s called hypervigilant. I’ve certainly had the experience.

But that’s not my point here.  I bring up the post only because Weiss writes like someone who’d never come across me before, duly (and snarkily) noting the “obscurity” of this blog. Well and good. No offense taken. We like our obscurity…it keeps us meek. And we’re told the meek will inherit the earth…or at least, what’s left of it after our oligarchs finish raping it.

However, I bring this up not to air any wound to my amour propre but because Judd Bagley, the main reporter at award-winning business blog Deep Capture, has accused Weiss of using sock puppets on wiki, and has posted screen shots to prove it. [It’s not germane to this tale that  too uses sock-puppets].

One of Weiss’s alleged sock-puppets on wiki, says , goes by the name, MantanMoreland (other names used there and elsewhere include Samiharris – at wiki – and Tom Sykes – at Daily Kos and other places).

Now, it so happens that when I was trying to get rid of my web-stalker, Tony R, I ran into someone called Mantanmoreland on the message boards that he haunted. Was this Weiss? Or was it someone else? You judge.

Correction:  I have crossed out the section below where I have incorrectly identified Tony R as someone by the name of Villasenor, whose postings/m.o. seemed similar to me on many counts. He has denied it (see comment section). My post resumes after the crossed out section.
Interestingly, Ry__s also claims he is not Ry__s.

[However, V doesn’t deny that – like R__s he uses multiple aliases, some very similar, frequents the same message boards, and attacks similar things].

Fair enough. I’ve added a correction. It makes no difference to my claim about R__ls or about Mantanmoreland, only it leaves me still in the dark who this person Ry__ls is.


Since the suit lists multiple aliases for him and some of these aliases resemble the multiple aliases that R___ls uses, their targets are similar, and their venues and forums often identical, it is an understandable error, if it’s one.

In any case, I will use R__ls name and strike through V’s, to avoid giving offense/slandering the wrong person….although it’s clear that neither of these two mind slandering other people.

I’ve no axe to grind in the matter.

To recap: V is a one-time stock-dealer who was fined by the NASD. He’s also a small-time racketeer (http://mindbodypolitic.org/2009/09/27/blogger-credibility/e http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/ARIZONA/2005-06/1118951523) and a former groupie of securities fraudster, Amr Elgindy and his Anthony Pacific site. (http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22945870). In whatever time is left over from that, he’s given to web stalking and harassing, for instance, of a (http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=15095618mber)

Just to be clear, I am agnostic about the merits of any of his claims about, who might be doing something illegal, for all I know. I mention this just to show that has a history of this sort of thing.

[With no cause at all, Tony R has also libeled Georgetown University professor, James Angel, because of a financial film he made that that didn’t conform to his ideas (as far as I recall the subject).

Anyway, I approached a number of of sites (such as, Indymedia, KYCNews, and the SEC complaints board) to have them remove Tony R’s libels and to find out how to make him desist. It turned out he was in Guatemala, so it would be hard for me to do anything legally about him. I was also told he was likely to just switch aliases and ratchet up the harassment, if I went after him. In fact, whenever I mentioned his most common alias name, Tony R, he would show up like lightning on this board and spam me (that’s why I’m not using his complete name).

Now here’s the interesting part. While I was trying to find out more about Ry__s, I came across an irate exchange between him (under one of his many aliases http://www.chillingeffects.org/uncat/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1748) and someone called Mantanmoreland. Note: it was on a message-board (not on wiki).

I wrote to Mantanmoreland (it was in February 2008), asking if he knew anything more about Tony R. and we went back and forth about it for some two weeks, exchanging around two dozen emails, most of which I still have. Those emails went under my name. In them I explained that I’d become the unwitting target of this Tony R, solely because I’d been hired to write a book with the president of a company that Tony R. was fixated about.

Here’s my question. Deep Capture says unequivocally that Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. Weiss denies it equally flatly. Now, I exchanged dozens of emails only a year ago with Mantanmoreland about a situation that he could hardly forget, since he had his gripe with Tony R too. But Weiss’ recent blog post seems to indicate that he has no idea who I am.

That leaves only one possibility. Either  Weiss or Bagley is in error (to put it as mildly as possible)…

Which is it? And what would that mean? And does that have anything to do with the recent (thwarted) attempt to delete my wiki page?

Added: As a matter of fact, by assessing the various reactions to this post (who posted, where and on what forums), I clarified the answer to the above question to my satisfaction…

Wiki Fudges Importance of Naked Short-Selling

(Continued from previous post)

Many people (including this blogger) see naked short-selling as one of the central rackets used by Wall Street’s racketeers to pull off their heists. It’s a view with quite a few supporters in the industry, government, and major media. But you wouldn’t know it from the wiki entry on naked short selling.

In a piece earlier this piece, urging sharper treatment of Geithner during his hearing, an off-shore journalist Lucy Komisar pointed out that naked short-selling of US Treasury bonds artificially depresses the price of the bonds by increasing the number of shares. It’s in effect a theft from the portfolios of ordinary people who hold them, unaware that their brokers are lending them out and leaving them only with electronic IOUs.
In other words, they’re lending to their broker, rather than to the US government….

In fact, the most prominent critic of naked short-selling, Patrick Byrne, has this to say on his blog, Deep Capture:

“Notwithstanding thousands of articles such as the ones cited above, the current Wikipedia article on naked short selling insists that experts believe that it is not a problem. No mention is made of hearings, statements by economists and SEC Chairmen, emergency federal actions and emergency meetings of regulators from the G-20 to stop the world financial system from imploding, etc. ……… notwithstanding the thousands of articles such as the ones I cited above, the current Wikipedia page maintains that the mass media agrees that naked short selling is not a problem…”

“The Hijacking of Social Media”

Byrne’s site has a useful video by Judd Bagley on naked short-selling:

Byrne is the CEO of Overstock, an online retailer of surplus and returned goods, which, he claims has been the victim of naked short-selling for many years. At one point, around 30% of Overstock’s float (shares held by the public and not institutional investors or insiders) consisted of fails (shares that did not deliver at settlement of the trade) and although fails can have many causes, naked short-selling is certainly the most important of them.

Note: Byrne claims that this isn’t the principal motivation for his campaign against the practice and points to his other philanthropic initiatives as proof. Major media business reporters, including Joe Nocera and Gary Weiss, have argued otherwise.

Note: Bagley has been accused of cyberstalking Weiss over Weiss’s alleged complicity in the social engineering of wikipedia.

Update: Note also that several experts have contradicted Byrne’s assessment of the effects of naked short selling on the price of the stocks he’s analyzed.

Still, whether Byrne is a hero or an out-of-control conspiracist is beside the point.

With the scale of criminality on Wall Street now, you’d have to be a hero and out-of-control to go after any of it successfully.

And conspiracy-mongering seems to be largely in the eye of the beholder.

Byrne deserves credit.

Update: To be fair to Byrne’s critics here is a criticism by one Sam Antar (a reformed felon who now consults on white collar crime) of Overstock’s accounting practices.

To be fair to Byrne, Antar’s original fraud was extensive and involved his whole family. Antal also admits to profiting from short positions in the companies he criticizes for fraud.

Wiki Fake Quote Shows Up Journalists

In the news:

“When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

The sociology major’s made-up quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer’s death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.

They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote’s lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.

A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud….”

More here

My Comment

Only a 22 year old would be shocked by this, of course. Any one else knows that very few journalists double check sources or go to the original print report and look for an additional sources. But I’m not convinced that Wikipedia is such a paragon of journalistic rectitude either.

And I wonder whether this story coming out now doesn’t conveniently bolster wiki’s own reputation? I like wiki as much as the next person, but, among other instances, when I was writing about Virginia Tech, I noticed some manipulation of the time-line (which I’ve written about on this blog).

The fact is Wiki has its own slant and it often editorializes very strongly. Of course, bloggers do it too.

But bloggers are supposed to editorialize, push the envelope and move faster than the print media. Wiki, on the other hand, is supposed to be the definitive online, interactive, “wisdom of crowds.”

Again – don’t get me wrong. I love wiki and find it mostly a reliable source, at least of references and pointers. But it’s been known to engineer a few things too….

(Continued in the next post)