oh the hyprocrisy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss
I guess the dozen editors making the same arguments that I did are all wordbombs socks and overstsock meatpuppets too.
WOW - look at this guy flail - this is right up there with Slimmy's famous 27 hour session behaviour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Samiharris
Full Version: Gary Weiss article talk page
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sat 8th December 2007, 6:17pm) 
oh the hyprocrisy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss
I guess the dozen editors making the same arguments that I did are all wordbombs socks and overstsock meatpuppets too.
WOW - look at this guy flail - this is right up there with Slimmy's famous 27 hour session behaviour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Samiharris
Just took a quick look at the Gary Weiss talk page. Since the story was published yesterday, there has been over 80kB of discussion and no permanent change to the article's content. Actions in this case speak louder than words. This is truly a special case article.
I haven't been following this, but is Samiharris a sockpuppet of Gary Weiss? Also does anyone know who Crum375 is? Of the two, Crum375 is the more mysterious as Samiharris wears his agenda prominently on his sleave.
QUOTE(SenseMaker @ Sat 8th December 2007, 10:28pm)
I haven't been following this, but is Samiharris a sockpuppet of Gary Weiss? Also does anyone know who Crum375 is? Of the two, Crum375 is the more mysterious as Samiharris wears his agenda prominently on his sleave.
Crum375 seems to be an expert on aviation crashes and disasters so is possibly an acquaintance of SlimVirgin i.e. Linda Mack who she met when investigating the Lockerbie/Pan Am disaster.
Twaktwiks comment pretty much sums up the situation:
"Final comment on this topic from me. I fully understand that most of us here are guests at Wikipedia. It is controlled by Jimmy Wales and only those people he trusts. Sorry that I tried to make Wikipedia better by asking for balance. I realize its your home and you guys make the rules, and as guests we just need to obey the house rules. Thats it for me on this controversy. Happy holidays. TwakTwik (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"
It's certainly good to see that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have some, uh, balls. Not that they'll be around much longer, I suspect...
At the risk of repeating myself, it's important to remind people that there's little or no moral basis for Wikipedia's bias in favor of Gary Weiss. Both Weiss and Mr. Bagley have attacked each other viciously on a variety of websites, and both have blogs that (by Wikipedia's standards, at least) are "substantially dedicated" to bashing each other. If anything, Weiss's screeds against Bagley are far more vicious and personal, referring to him as "hideous" and "disgusting," while Bagley usually sticks with slightly less pejorative terms like "pathetic" and "obsessive." Admittedly though, it's to Weiss's credit that he generally avoids mentioning the dispute in his Forbes.com online column, but that may be more due to strictures imposed by Forbes.com, rather than a deliberate act of self-restraint on his part.
However, for people who work in the IT sector, it has to be pointed out that Weiss is not only an outspoken proponent of "naked short selling" - a rather questionable practice at best - he's also a huge supporter of Indian offshore outsourcing. He has gone so far as to argue that restrictions be lifted on export of nuclear components to India - restrictions that were put in place to help prevent World War III from breaking out in the Kashmir region. Weiss is also married to an Indian national, and spends a great deal of time there, "consulting."
Meanwhile, Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com were recently the subjects of a positive review in Information Week, which states:
Apparently, as a result of their site's redesign by domestic, well-paid Java programmers (along with a fairly good ad campaign), Overstock recently had the second-biggest post-Thanksgiving-Day "spike" of any online retailer.
And while it may be that naked short selling isn't the "real" or "main" reason for Overstock's past financial problems, the idea that it's better to protect so-called "gullible investors" - most of whom are super-rich to begin with and know full well that the stock market is always risky - at the expense of potentially forcing Overstock into laying off hundreds of workers, or going out of business entirely, is just about the worst form of snide, greedy hypocrisy imaginable. Byrne may not be a particularly good CEO, or even a particularly good employer, but maybe the Wikipedians who support his enemies should stop for a minute to realize that Byrne isn't the only one being targeted by Weiss - and by extension, them.
Frankly, as I see it, the unquestioning support of Weiss by Wikipedia is tantamount to supporting the loss of American jobs, primarily to line the pockets of greedy, and possibly quite shady, investors. And this is all in the name of punishing a so-called "cyberstalker" whose activities are really no worse than those of the other side.
All of this can be verified by even a cursory look at what's actually going on.
At the risk of repeating myself, it's important to remind people that there's little or no moral basis for Wikipedia's bias in favor of Gary Weiss. Both Weiss and Mr. Bagley have attacked each other viciously on a variety of websites, and both have blogs that (by Wikipedia's standards, at least) are "substantially dedicated" to bashing each other. If anything, Weiss's screeds against Bagley are far more vicious and personal, referring to him as "hideous" and "disgusting," while Bagley usually sticks with slightly less pejorative terms like "pathetic" and "obsessive." Admittedly though, it's to Weiss's credit that he generally avoids mentioning the dispute in his Forbes.com online column, but that may be more due to strictures imposed by Forbes.com, rather than a deliberate act of self-restraint on his part.
However, for people who work in the IT sector, it has to be pointed out that Weiss is not only an outspoken proponent of "naked short selling" - a rather questionable practice at best - he's also a huge supporter of Indian offshore outsourcing. He has gone so far as to argue that restrictions be lifted on export of nuclear components to India - restrictions that were put in place to help prevent World War III from breaking out in the Kashmir region. Weiss is also married to an Indian national, and spends a great deal of time there, "consulting."
Meanwhile, Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com were recently the subjects of a positive review in Information Week, which states:
QUOTE
Overstock employed the concept of agile development, where teams of developers work with business units to create new functionality. It moved away from offshore development, which the company had used with little success. "I was the biggest proponent--as a stupid Dilbert management kind of guy--saying, 'Let's outsource.' Now I've come completely 180 degrees to the agile approach," Byrne says, adding, "We found it's worth it to pay up for more expensive and more serious people."
Apparently, as a result of their site's redesign by domestic, well-paid Java programmers (along with a fairly good ad campaign), Overstock recently had the second-biggest post-Thanksgiving-Day "spike" of any online retailer.
And while it may be that naked short selling isn't the "real" or "main" reason for Overstock's past financial problems, the idea that it's better to protect so-called "gullible investors" - most of whom are super-rich to begin with and know full well that the stock market is always risky - at the expense of potentially forcing Overstock into laying off hundreds of workers, or going out of business entirely, is just about the worst form of snide, greedy hypocrisy imaginable. Byrne may not be a particularly good CEO, or even a particularly good employer, but maybe the Wikipedians who support his enemies should stop for a minute to realize that Byrne isn't the only one being targeted by Weiss - and by extension, them.
Frankly, as I see it, the unquestioning support of Weiss by Wikipedia is tantamount to supporting the loss of American jobs, primarily to line the pockets of greedy, and possibly quite shady, investors. And this is all in the name of punishing a so-called "cyberstalker" whose activities are really no worse than those of the other side.
All of this can be verified by even a cursory look at what's actually going on.
FeloniousMonk is preparing to ban people from Gary Weiss's talk page because they disagree with him/her. FeloniousMonk is claiming that they are engaging in disruption, but the fact is no one has edited the contents of the Gary Weiss article in days, its been locked down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176926436
A lot of people see through this nonsense from FeloniousMonk and SamiHarris. The best examples of nonsense is when SamiHarris and friends claim that the Register is not a credible source, but then you have Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris (who are likely the same person) himself adding it to the Patrick_M._Byrne article when it suits their purposes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=80026081 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=80082776
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=158680441
I simply can't believe how rotten Wikipedia is on this article. What the fuck is up with FeloniousMonk here, why is he/she defending this clearyl outrageous behavior? This is egregious behavior that exceeds all bounds. Its blatantly hypocritical to any neutral observer.
Lawrence Cohen asks a really good question, one that probably won't be answered by Mantanmoreland, SamiHarris or FeloniousMonk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176927539
It has spread onto AN/I here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...76939253#G-Dett
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176926436
A lot of people see through this nonsense from FeloniousMonk and SamiHarris. The best examples of nonsense is when SamiHarris and friends claim that the Register is not a credible source, but then you have Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris (who are likely the same person) himself adding it to the Patrick_M._Byrne article when it suits their purposes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=80026081 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=80082776
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=158680441
I simply can't believe how rotten Wikipedia is on this article. What the fuck is up with FeloniousMonk here, why is he/she defending this clearyl outrageous behavior? This is egregious behavior that exceeds all bounds. Its blatantly hypocritical to any neutral observer.
Lawrence Cohen asks a really good question, one that probably won't be answered by Mantanmoreland, SamiHarris or FeloniousMonk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176927539
It has spread onto AN/I here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...76939253#G-Dett
FeloniousMonk just said this to DanTobias:
FeloniousMonk is confusing cause and effect. It's not that people come from Wikipedia Review but rather than they are driven to post on Wikipedia Review because of the various instances of blatant hypocrisy they were unfortunate to encounter at Wikipedia (such as this case, it is enough to jade you on the whole thing.)
I notice that FeloniousMonk nor SamiHarris still haven't responded to Lawrence Cohen's poignant question. I guess in a sense this AN/I posting of FeloniousMonk is a good way to distract from having to answer for one's blatant hypocrisy. Underhanded tactic, but exactly what one would expect from an expert at gaming the system instead of trying to build a proper encyclopedia.
I haven't been this annoyed in a long time, I'm actually surprising myself, but the case is just so incredibly clear cut here.
Jimbo Wales weights in on the Gary Weiss talk page:
Proposed section - can we collaborate on something?
I think there is an NPOV way to deal with Weiss being a critic of overstock.com and Byrne (which is true and, I think, as noteworthy as the other examples from his career). And we can do this using only reliable sources (i.e. NOT The Register, which I think should not be used as a source for anything at all relating to either side of this argument).
The NYT blog post is a good source, though written in a breezy tone. Quoting it alone in reference to Bagley's claims could easily be a problem of "undue weight", i.e. if our article makes it sound like this is a simple internet flame war with a "he said / she said" war of questionable claims on both sides. But what we have in reliable sources about Judd Bagley can be repeated to some extent here, so that readers here will understand the nature of the claims coming from Bagley: "Bagley had previously created similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" at The Motley Fool, an online investing website.[25]"
Could we work on a compromise version here? The idea is to write the paragraph so that the reader can understand (a) that Weiss is a critic of Overstock.com and that (b) as a result of this, Overstock launched an "attack site" against Weiss and that © Weiss of course denied the things claimed there and (d) this whole thing fits into a bigger story about Bagley's career (the Motley Fool example, but there are others I suppose).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE
So you're admiting you're party to a group of editors from Wikipedia Review who oppose SlimVirgin. Thanks for making this point for us. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk is confusing cause and effect. It's not that people come from Wikipedia Review but rather than they are driven to post on Wikipedia Review because of the various instances of blatant hypocrisy they were unfortunate to encounter at Wikipedia (such as this case, it is enough to jade you on the whole thing.)
I notice that FeloniousMonk nor SamiHarris still haven't responded to Lawrence Cohen's poignant question. I guess in a sense this AN/I posting of FeloniousMonk is a good way to distract from having to answer for one's blatant hypocrisy. Underhanded tactic, but exactly what one would expect from an expert at gaming the system instead of trying to build a proper encyclopedia.
I haven't been this annoyed in a long time, I'm actually surprising myself, but the case is just so incredibly clear cut here.
Jimbo Wales weights in on the Gary Weiss talk page:
QUOTE
Proposed section - can we collaborate on something?
I think there is an NPOV way to deal with Weiss being a critic of overstock.com and Byrne (which is true and, I think, as noteworthy as the other examples from his career). And we can do this using only reliable sources (i.e. NOT The Register, which I think should not be used as a source for anything at all relating to either side of this argument).
The NYT blog post is a good source, though written in a breezy tone. Quoting it alone in reference to Bagley's claims could easily be a problem of "undue weight", i.e. if our article makes it sound like this is a simple internet flame war with a "he said / she said" war of questionable claims on both sides. But what we have in reliable sources about Judd Bagley can be repeated to some extent here, so that readers here will understand the nature of the claims coming from Bagley: "Bagley had previously created similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" at The Motley Fool, an online investing website.[25]"
Could we work on a compromise version here? The idea is to write the paragraph so that the reader can understand (a) that Weiss is a critic of Overstock.com and that (b) as a result of this, Overstock launched an "attack site" against Weiss and that © Weiss of course denied the things claimed there and (d) this whole thing fits into a bigger story about Bagley's career (the Motley Fool example, but there are others I suppose).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is really quite fantastic: after The Register has criticised WP...then suddenly the Register becomes NOT a WP:RS..... -contrary to all established policies!
And Jimbo have answered Lawrence Cohens "crux of the matter" question: "Just an FYI, as a major bone of contention in the deleted discussion was, "Why is the Register an acceptable source on the [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, but not [[Gary Weiss]] at all?" I asked on the Talk page, and no one answered"
-------by going out "cherry-picking" sources which A: are negative to [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, B: are NOT negative to [[Gary Weiss]]... Ah! The juggling act! And he found... a NewYork Times blog post. Of course, THAT source will be RS exactly until the second it starts A: writing something positive about Byrne, or B: writing something negative about Weiss
And Jimbo have answered Lawrence Cohens "crux of the matter" question: "Just an FYI, as a major bone of contention in the deleted discussion was, "Why is the Register an acceptable source on the [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, but not [[Gary Weiss]] at all?" I asked on the Talk page, and no one answered"
-------by going out "cherry-picking" sources which A: are negative to [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, B: are NOT negative to [[Gary Weiss]]... Ah! The juggling act! And he found... a NewYork Times blog post. Of course, THAT source will be RS exactly until the second it starts A: writing something positive about Byrne, or B: writing something negative about Weiss
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:17am)
It is really quite fantastic: after The Register has criticised WP...then suddenly the Register becomes NOT a WP:RS..... -contrary to all established policies!
And Jimbo have answered Lawrence Cohens "crux of the matter" question: "Just an FYI, as a major bone of contention in the deleted discussion was, "Why is the Register an acceptable source on the [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, but not [[Gary Weiss]] at all?" I asked on the Talk page, and no one answered"
-------by going out "cherry-picking" sources which A: are negative to [[Patrick M. Byrne]] article, B: are NOT negative to [[Gary Weiss]]... Ah! The juggling act! And he found... a NewYork Times blog post. Of course, THAT source will be RS exactly until the second it starts A: writing something positive about Byrne, or B: writing something negative about Weiss
Jimbo did acknowledge at least that the issue would get some coverage, that is a step in the right direction. I also found that bit about Mark Cuban that Cool Hand Luke brought up to be interesting and relevant. Mantanmoreland/Gary Weiss has really been using Wikipedia as a platform for slandering/attacking his enemies for quite some time.
QUOTE
So you're admiting you're party to a group of editors from Wikipedia Review who oppose SlimVirgin. Thanks for making this point for us. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice to know that there's an official policy that you mustn't oppose SlimVirgin.
This case is an example of the issue I focus on in my own Primary Objective for participating in Wikipedia...
Three months ago, I wrote this essay that touches on the Weiss/Bagley Kerfuffle...
QUOTE(Moulton's Objectives)
Objectives
My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.
My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.
My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.
My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.
My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.
My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.
Three months ago, I wrote this essay that touches on the Weiss/Bagley Kerfuffle...
QUOTE(Media Ethics Blog)
Antisocial Darwinism: Diversity and Wikicide
The popular CBS series, Survivor, illustrates the political drama of the elimination of one's rivals by voting them off the island.
The term, Social Darwinism, reflects a more conventional version of that political practice, when it comes to extinguishing an unwanted socio-cultural lineage. In the worst case, Social Darwinism devolves into Ethnic Cleansing and even Genocide. On the other side, there is the celebration of Cultural Diversity.
At the intersection of politics, culture, and religion, those of us with a scientific or journalistic perspective find no shortage of human phenomena to observe and chronicle.
On the other hand the practice of observing and chronicling the phenomenon of Social Darwinism can sometimes subject a scientist or journalist to a firsthand experience of being voted off the island.
A good example is the case of Judd Bagley vs Gary Weiss.
Judd Bagley is one of the principals behind OverStock.Com, a commercial website that remarkets surplus retail merchandise. Incidentally, Bagley is also the owner of another website, AntiSocialMedia.Net, which levels criticisms at writers who "abuse social media for personal gain." In Veni, Vidi, Wiki, Bagley turns his sights on a business journalist, Gary Weiss, whom Bagley also identifies as a frequent contributor to Wikipedia. Bagley's criticisms of Wikipedian practices and ethics is so scathing and so stinging, that neutral editors on Wikipedia can't decide how to present the controversy in Wikipedia's own article on OverStock.Com and Judd Bagley. Some editors want to brand AntiSocialMedia.Net a "Bad Site" and forbid its mention on Wikipedia. Other editors adopt the view that if a Wikipedia article is going to mention and characterize AntiSocialMedia.Net, then the article should include a live link to the so-called "Bad Site." The editors have taken their impasse to arbitration on Wikipedia.
Without passing on the merits of the charges and counter-charges arising in the above kerfuffle, there does appear to be some kind of liminal social drama in play regarding cultural diversity, freedom to publish responsible criticism, and Wikicide.
Whether Wikicide refers to critics killing off Wikipedia, or Wikipedia killing off its critics remain to be discovered.
After they finish voting each other off the island, there may not be any survivors at all.
There may not even be any island left when this war is over.
See, for example, this proposal to supplant Wikipedia by a more intelligently designed system:
The popular CBS series, Survivor, illustrates the political drama of the elimination of one's rivals by voting them off the island.
The term, Social Darwinism, reflects a more conventional version of that political practice, when it comes to extinguishing an unwanted socio-cultural lineage. In the worst case, Social Darwinism devolves into Ethnic Cleansing and even Genocide. On the other side, there is the celebration of Cultural Diversity.
At the intersection of politics, culture, and religion, those of us with a scientific or journalistic perspective find no shortage of human phenomena to observe and chronicle.
On the other hand the practice of observing and chronicling the phenomenon of Social Darwinism can sometimes subject a scientist or journalist to a firsthand experience of being voted off the island.
A good example is the case of Judd Bagley vs Gary Weiss.
Judd Bagley is one of the principals behind OverStock.Com, a commercial website that remarkets surplus retail merchandise. Incidentally, Bagley is also the owner of another website, AntiSocialMedia.Net, which levels criticisms at writers who "abuse social media for personal gain." In Veni, Vidi, Wiki, Bagley turns his sights on a business journalist, Gary Weiss, whom Bagley also identifies as a frequent contributor to Wikipedia. Bagley's criticisms of Wikipedian practices and ethics is so scathing and so stinging, that neutral editors on Wikipedia can't decide how to present the controversy in Wikipedia's own article on OverStock.Com and Judd Bagley. Some editors want to brand AntiSocialMedia.Net a "Bad Site" and forbid its mention on Wikipedia. Other editors adopt the view that if a Wikipedia article is going to mention and characterize AntiSocialMedia.Net, then the article should include a live link to the so-called "Bad Site." The editors have taken their impasse to arbitration on Wikipedia.
Without passing on the merits of the charges and counter-charges arising in the above kerfuffle, there does appear to be some kind of liminal social drama in play regarding cultural diversity, freedom to publish responsible criticism, and Wikicide.
Whether Wikicide refers to critics killing off Wikipedia, or Wikipedia killing off its critics remain to be discovered.
After they finish voting each other off the island, there may not be any survivors at all.
There may not even be any island left when this war is over.
See, for example, this proposal to supplant Wikipedia by a more intelligently designed system:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.