http://www.wikinvest.com

This is going to be an oversight nightmare if it ever catches on, for the SEC.

Jesus CHRIST

Looks like they allow pseudonymous editing, and assign titles like "analyst", "associate", "director" based on edit count. This might end up as the vehicle to test Sec. 230 immunity.

I don't get it.

Can someone explain it so that we don't have to look through the whole thing.

It's a website which offers advice to investors.

Which anyone can edit. Anonymously.

Thus the name "Wikinvest", but to easily read it, add an extra i so it reads "WikiInvest".

The securities trading industry is highly regulated. Part of this regulation involves who discloses what information. An "insider" can be criminally prosecuted for revealing certain information. The industry also licenses and credentials people who earn commissions off of trades.

This wiki, on first glance, seems to present some problems in these areas.

If it became popular, all I need do is buy a few equities in a fairly obscure company trading low, move to an internet cafe, generate plenty of buzz that said company is going to be subject to a takeover bid (and the stock almost certainly will rise, through event driven hedge funds and amateur speculators if noone else), and sell before the rumour has been comprehensively denied. And it can't be traced back to me.

SOME problems? Hahahaha!

Insider > Open Proxy > Wikinvest:User:LOLanon > Profit!

It's a horrible idea for the usage of an open source/web 2.0 model, let alone a Wiki one. Agreed with the above comment: this site could well be the device used to destroy the unethical usage for profiteering and immorality of Section 230 protections.

Tell Jimmy and Angela: be honest in your disclosures to Wikia investers; the chuck wagon may be breaking an axle soon.

Oh okay. So insider trading made legal? Lawsuit time!

And how do we expect this to harm Wikipedia? From what I am understanding, surely it'd help Wikipedia.

So Guy is the only one of us who can use understatement?

The opposite. If one of these Wiki sites loses a reasonable Section 230 immunity lawsuit, it sets precedent for anyone to ahead and keelhaul Jimbo and the Board into a Florida courtroom for lord knows what. I bet Kat Walsh and Anthere never expected that they themselves could be legally liable for bullshit someone from an open-proxy in Kazaksthan tossed online, but surprise: they very well could be.

No, dude.

1) Get broker on phone.
2) Post message a usenet group about investing saying "Company is having a merger," which you know cause you work there. Actually spam the place so nobody can killpost you.
3) Tell broker to wait until stock either goes up more than $1 or else 6 hours pass, then buy shitloads.
4) Direct SEC to google groups

I don't know about you guys, but I take all my financial advice from Mybikeisgreen4.









Anybody know anyone with a green bike?

Nobody need waste any time trying to explain it to me, but I'm not seeing how (from a legal standpoint) this is any different than the Yahoo! or Google stock message boards. You can spam those with information or disinformation, anonymously.

I mean, I suppose the SEC could subpoena Yahoo! or Google to obtain IP address of a questionable poster, but same could be said of Wikinvest.com, right?

By the way, Yahoo! and Google message boards are constantly full of messages like, "INTL is going to make offer on CYMI tomorrow. LOAD UP ON THIS ONE. To the moon and beyond!"

Greg

The difference is the same as the difference between Wikipedia and a message board: The apparent authority of the source.

A brand-new Wikia wiki has authority? I dunno about you guys, but I've always pegged Wikia wikis right up there with Tripod sites and Usenet posts. Amusing, but don't take that nonsense seriously.

The possibility of a Yahoo investment group running afoul of SEC regulation is itself not trivial. That would provide an opportunity to erode Sec. 230 immunity, with the attack financed by the feds. An investment wiki is even better because it would provide case law more precisely on point relative to 230 immunity for Wikipedia.

That's irrelevant. It has apparent authority.

Would Jimbo take it as a direct business/legal attack if one of the aims of us was to educate people that Wikis aren't to be trusted (specifically, Wikipedia et al and also Wikia)?

I'd be all for that goal. Wikis (like forums and Usenet and any other thing posted by some guy on the internet) should not be trusted except insofar as you know and trust the authors or know and trust the sources.

I was just checking something on a wiki, and remembered this thread.

http://www.trade2win.com/traderpedia/Main_Page

How a wiki should be done. Immune from vandalism afaik, and fits in to the site perfectly (your account is the same as your forum account, you can insert links using inteerwiki syntax to other parts of the site, etc etc), despite being based upon mediawiki.

Maybe Jimbo could contribute

I get it now.

Wikipedia was put here to make us stupid - Stupid enough to buy penny stocks from 14 year olds.

What a nefarious plan!

Welcome to TacoSwell.

I know a bike theif with a green bike - who I'd be more than happy to see dragged through court.

I doubt he would care. But, why would you want to anyway?