http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=197236219

For those keeping score at home, Gary Weiss is friends with Nocera, Antilla, Norris, and Greenberg. And they are happy to provide "WP:RS" soundbites (EDITORIALS, not JOURNALISM) about how "wacky" they think Patrick is. Until they don't any more......oh yeah, Greenberg is named in Overstock vs Rocker Partners/Copper River law-suit documents by "witness" statements for something not positive. And was supoena'ed (sp?) by the SEC due to Byrne (also supoena'ed about it). And has been used by his friend Weiss as a "WP:RS" in Byrne WP artices. Yeah, that's just great. Antilla worked with Weiss for years, gave his book a glowing review. At least someone else besides GW did, for once.

So what is Gary's latest project? He knows Mark Mitchell (former CJR reporter who really was 'harassed/threatend' in real life, is going to take this one step further than El Reg staff (who are doing mostly bold investigative journalism, but lack Media 1.0 cred with the those over 40). So GW's new hobby is to start the discrediting of Mitchell.

Somehow I really doubt he'll find the sort of dirt that has been found out about the people Mitchell is investigating.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide38.swf
http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide35.swf

that first link is the best....actual audio deep capture of what started a huge effort, a great part of which manifested on WP...


that's where slide 56 above comes in....

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide56.swf


I don't know if Wordbomb has a sortable presentation available on the nets, but you can manually scroll through it by replacing the "...slideXX.swf" slide number is the url addresses...the WP stuff is in the 50's-60's range...

The first slide indicates this is from a lecture given last week at the University of Texas (Austin).

this slide is hilarious....go Linda!

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide61.swf


User:G-dett gets some love

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide66.swf



...But Jimbo Wales doesn't...

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide67.swf
http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/data/swf/slide70.swf

okay....old news here, but whatever.


Links? Proof?

I knew that there was a possibility that some motivated person might do exactly what you've done, but didn't think it would actually happen!

Here you go...still some rough edges to smooth out (timing of some animations, etc) but here's the whole thing.

By the way, this was a lecture I recently gave at the University of Texas, on abuse of social media.

The final version will be posted to DeepCapture.com in the next few days.

I love the format of this thing. It's fantastic. Very illustrative, and cuts through the complicated text based crap.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

I wish we could use this kind of thing more often to show the various stories we uncover, because it is the clearest exposition I've seen.

It is an outstanding and engaging lecture, Judd. I'm honored to be serving on the board of Internet Review Corporation with you and the other trustees.

I hope that everyone watches the lecture presentation in its entirety (only 57 minutes), and I insist that NOT ONE COMMENT in this thread be directed to the subject of my "return" here. I haven't returned, except for this endorsement of Judd's work, because it perfectly exemplifies the sort of thing I want to be associated with in the real world as I continue to grow as an adult. I wish Wikipedia Review all the best of success, too, of course. Try to mirror Judd's output!

Now, go watch Judd's lecture.

Greg

Pretty good... but it's not really accurate in its description of BADSITES (which, as you probably already know, is a "pet topic" of mine... my condominium bans pets, so the only sort I get to have are pet topics, pet peeves, and the like). Judd refers to BADSITES as some sort of automated script or program that bans any user who links to or mentions an "evil site", and also implies that his own AntisocialMedia site is the first or only site to be so classified.

I think he's conflating the BADSITES proposal with other things such as the spam blacklist, which prevents linking to sites on it (though it doesn't auto-ban users who try to insert such links, and while I think AntisocialMedia is [or was] on the blacklist, it's hardly the only site on it; it's primarily used for such things as "BuyViagraNow" spam sites, though it's also had some mission creep driven by the likes of JzG to use it in more controversial ways such as against so-called "fringe" sites on topics like cold fusion). The blacklist, however, is completely independent of BADSITES (in its various forms); sites that have been considered "attack sites" at various times may or may not have ever been placed on the spam blacklist.

Anyway, BADSITES originally referred to a specific proposal dating from April 2007 to ban linking to so-called "attack sites". The proposal was made by no-longer-active user DennyColt, and Wikipedia Review was the original primary target of this proposal, which was never actually enacted into policy. The term BADSITES is also used in a more general sense to refer to all similar concepts in policies, proposals, administrator actions, ArbCom decisions, and the like. The concept seems to have first surfaced in the infamous MONGO ArbCom case of 2006, where Encyclopedia Dramatica was the targeted site. Later, there have been many attempts to enforce such a concept against a variety of sites, of which AntisocialMedia is only one, not the sole or primary one. However, when the concept itself became the subject of an ArbCom case, it did indeed focus primarily on AntisocialMedia, so that's probably where Judd gets the idea that this is what BADSITES was about. However, even that case soon expanded to discuss a wide variety of other alleged attack sites.

Dan, you are 100% correct. Indeed, it could be said that every point made in the presentation is, in reality, a bit more complicated. But I had a ton of ground to cover in just one hour, so abridgments had to be made -- particularly with regard to the sausage factory that is Wikipedia policy-making, to which, mercifully, 99.9% of humans will likely never be subjected.

What these students needed to understand were the following points:
1- SlimVirgin held disproportionate power over Wikipedia in her day, including over Jimbo Wales.
2- She used that power to protect her friends and, in at least one egregious case, preserve gross policy violations and misinformation in important articles.
3- When challenged on her own misbehavior, she used her power to orchestrate a farcical, libelous cover-up campaign that attempted to officially prevent linking to antisocialmedia.net, while the propriety of linking to pro-pedophilia and neo-Nazi websites was well-established.
4- A rather epic "debate" on the topic was held, in which (as evidence of SlimVirgin's influence) the topic of debate could not be mentioned.

Hopefully this invitation to lecture will lead to others (feel free to pass the word), in which the finer points may be examined in much greater detail.

And a heart-felt thanks to Greg Kohs for his comments. I'm certain the Internet Review Corp. is going to accomplish some very important things.

As usual, DT's pinheaded POV puts him way behind the curve on even what he considers his Wiki-Pet subjects.

Ja Ja

not a crticism, just an observation, that either Juddster exercised some more-than-deserved merciful restraint, or just forgot, to mention that "SlimVirgin", a former journalist herself, had reason to exercise WikiPower over this Byrne Tangled Web on WP due to a negative experience in school with him....and not the only incident in a long, oversight-erased trend of behaviour of exercising years/decades-old grudge retaliation via WP Privvies. I wonder how many other WikiJedi's have exercised editorial injustices on the WP over real world grudges.

Yet another of the many necessary abridgments I had to make. However it did come up during the question period afterward.

The Colarusso audio slide is a wordbombshell. It needs to be YouTubed, blogged, posted to the comment sections of all major financial news sites, etc. With perhaps a few more seconds of audio context around that snippet, if possible....people expect that at NY Post meeting, but not SABEW conferences. Where's the outrage from other professional journalists? I mean the ones that haven't quit in disgrace to go to work for their hedge fund masters as analysts ;-0

Where's Colarusso working at now? Is he still employed as a professional editor/journalist? I saw him on CNBC once.

Who's going to go Serpico on their own in the world of TV/Newsprint Business Journalism? I'd pay $ to see Liz Clayman (ok, I'd really pay $ to see her do the Naked News, but that's another less honourable sidebar!) do an expose including that audio, of how business journalism can fall prey to "orgainised corporate (CEO in this case) smear campaign", to quote Gary Samimoreland's 1000 WP cries.

Prediction - Chanos ( a god on CNBC) is about to get some heat over the front-running downgrade blow-up on Bloomberg news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a1DyqLgTdy38

not even mentioning his Spitzer Hooker enabling...

Jim Chanos' WP article's editing activity could get interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Chanos


Is the Daniel Loeb mentioned in the Bloomberg article suspected to have had a Wikipedia account?

Wanting factual accuraccy is "pinheaded"? I guess it is, when compared to stuff that's really important like ideological / political correctness.

Are you really so fooled by a form of words?

The fact is that all your crusading against the BADSITES policy was deftly e-vaded when the BADSITES tumor metastasized out to Meta under the cover of the so-called "Spam Blacklist". If you can't see that then you need to pull your pinhead out of the wiksand.

Ja Ja

I've gotten involved in some skirmishes with JzG over the spam blacklist, but it's tough going right now because he and his clique have very tight control in that particular arena.

Cf. In-Url Retentiveness

Ja Ja

Yeah, it's great stuff. Byrne had a similarly-formatted presentation about FTDs. Whatever software packages these presentations is awesome. Maybe it's hell on the back end, but to the viewer it's slick and intuitive. (Incidentally, I think it's more intuitive to put editing dates along the x-axis--my charts are 90 degrees to yours, WordBomb).

Jimbo's Sept. 15, 2007 email (which I only found out about a week into Arbitration), the "shoot on sight" Cla68 incident, and Jimbo's ArbCom "evidence" section still bother me.