The Black Cat and Wikipedia.

[formercia]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_n... /

Emails show journalist rigged Wikipedia's naked shorts


Overstock's Byrne vindicated amidst economic meltdown

By Cade Metz in San Francisco

Two and a half years ago, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne 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. "He insisted that only he controlled what was printed on the editorial page, so I wrote it. Then, after a few days, he got back to me and said 'It appears I can't run this or anything else you write.'"

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.

--snip--

http://www.deepcapture.com/do-i-live-in-a-synthetic-rea... /

March 21st, 2009 by Patrick Byrne

“The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.”

- Morpheus to Neo, The Matrix

It is the mission of DeepCapture to show you, dear reader, that the financial world you inhabit, a world vouched-for in dulcet Midwestern tones by actor-spokesmen you recognize and trust, a world inhabited by honest brokers looking after your money, brokers who interact through self-regulating exchanges overseen by diligent regulators, themselves overseen by elected politicians looking out for their constituents, themselves challenged by an adversarial free press maintaining a critical posture towards it all, is in fact a “world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.” It doesn’t exist: it is a socially constructed reality designed to keep you complacent as you feed your savings to the machine.

And I can prove it. For that matter, so can you, right now, from your computer. To explain how, I must continue with reference to The Matrix.

There is a point in the movie where Neo and his comrades are walking up a staircase. Neo glimpses a black cat that disappears then reappears:
--snip--

[formercia]

1. It's a bit of a long read but well worth it.

This illustrates a symptom of a bigger problem.

Our whole society is structured like this.

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. K and R

[formercia]

3. A peek through the keyhole

Do you really want to take the red pill?

[originalpckelly]

5. I think I must have ODed on a bottle of red pills.

I think all this shit is bullshit.

[originalpckelly]

4. Excellent! This is exactly what I've realized...

it's so easy to prove. It's like George Carlin said in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyObuH3WTY&feature=rela...

[formercia]

6. There's a man with critical thinking.

I saw him in Greenwich Village back in the 60's. I was in the front row and Carlin was about 5 feet from me. It was a wake-up call. The first thing I thought was: "Someone is going to kill that fucker."

[NashVegas]

7. Short-Selling Wouldn't Have Done Jack Shit If Wall St Accountants Weren't Running On Empty

Like regular joes and joans who got screwed when credit and mortgage rates went up, when a corporation's stock price goes down, the interest rate of borrowed money goes up.

Wall St fucked itself with its drive for consolidation. A company with a lot of cash on hand is a take-over target, so they hand it over to stockholders and go on more buying sprees, anything to reduce the threat of a take-over.

They're like super-models who go anorexic to make a living.

Short-sellers may be asswipes, but they would never have been able to truly bring down a healthy company.

[formercia]

9. Some people think otherwise.

Spend some time on his site and see if you change your mind.

http://www.deepcapture.com/

[NashVegas]

10. I'm Aware of the Mob-Activity, etc.

But what I'm saying is, all they can affect is stock price. If the company is otherwise solid, it shouldn't be affected. If it needs loans to stay afloat, it's fucked.

[formercia]

11. If it affects a line of credit

that can really put a kink in the works.

[DireStrike]

8. The point of this article is that you can't edit the wikipedia page on naked short sales.

A poster in the comments section claimed that this is because the article is protected due to spam attacks, and that someone who is auto-confirmed should be able to edit the site.

Is there anyone who is auto-confirmed who can test that theory?

[B o d i]

12. At the bottom of the wiki page, it says "This page was last modified on 20 March 2009, at 18:35."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling


So, someone can modify it apparently, and has, recently. I don't have an account there to check who modified it or what was changed though.

[Jim Lane]

14. The Wikipedia article on "Naked short selling"

The article on "Naked short selling" is unusual in that it was the subject of an extraordinary amount of contention, including at least one lengthy arbitration proceeding, allegations of violations of Wikipedia rules, etc. It's now one of the tiny fraction of all Wikipedia articles to be on article probation, a heightened level of scrutiny. (BTW, other such articles include those on DU and Free Republic, but even those two combined haven't attracted the furor this one has.)

Anyone who wants all the details of the Wikipedia dispute can read the decision of the Arbitration Committee. Well, if you want all the details, you'll also have to read the associated talk page and the Evidence page and even the Evidence page's associated talk page.

The article linked in the OP was written during a brief period last fall when the article was fully protected, meaning that it couldn't be edited except by the Wikipedia admins, of whom there are, at this writing, 1,632. (In other words, it's more like the corps of mods at DU than like the "admins" here.)

The article is currently "semi-protected". That means that, unlike most Wikipedia articles, you can't edit it without registering. You have to register an account and wait a few days. There's no procedure of reviewing your new account to determine if you're sensible or a disruptor; just create the account and wait, and you can edit. (If you do disrupt, of course, your new account will be swiftly blocked.)

Protection, whether semi-protection or full protection, doesn't affect your ability to read the article or its history, though. Go to the article and click on the "history" tab at the top, and you can review each and every edit that's ever been made. You can also click on the "discussion" tab and see the editors wrangling with each other over the points in dispute.

The March 20 edit -- in case B o d i or anyone else is dying of curiosity -- added a sentence to the caption of the "Schematic representation of naked short selling in two steps" illustration. The caption now reads: "The short seller sells shares without owning them. He then purchases and delivers the shares for a different market price. If the short seller cannot afford the shares in the second step, or the shares are not available, a 'fail to deliver' results." The most recent edit added the final sentence. This edit was the product of a discussion on the article's talk page that began on March 9.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. It seems some GOPers aren't restricting their wiki use to Conservapedia!

I remember when Wiki Scanner came out and people were shocked to find out companies were paying people to edit the corporation's Wikip*dia page to be more favorable to the corporation.

Of course I've known for a while the 101st Fightin' Internets Chickehawks were distorting other pages.

NPOV my ass.

[Jim Lane]

18. NPOV (the Neutral Point of View) on Wikipedia

"NPOV my ass" goes too far. Many Wikipedia articles are reasonably neutral. On others, though, you're unfortunately correct that right-wing editors have succeeded in distorting the content.

There are some of us who do what we can to counteract them, but with more than two million articles, Wikipedia presents difficulties to those who try to maintain it. Inevitably, the right-wingers will score some wins, over a short or long term. (Of course, there are a few articles that are distorted by the work of left-wing extremists, or cultists who don't readily fit on the left-right spectrum.)

The bright side is that Wikipedia depends on people power, not on the money to buy publicity. This is a site that doesn't accept advertising and so is not in thrall to the corporations the way the MSM are, yet Wikipedia reaches huge numbers of people. It's a great opportunity for the side in any debate that has less money but more information. That side is usually us!

[autorank]

13. Patrick Byrne is an honest man, in addition to being very bright

The blog he sponsors is terrific too.

K*R

[formercia]

17. His company suffered from naked short sellers

The 'Mob' at work.

[ddeclue]

16. Put some cat food out..the black cat will re-appear eventually!

At least mine does every night when I put a bowl of food out for it on the back porch...She's all black...I've never named her..did the cat in the Matrix have a name? Maybe I can name her Neo... Neo the Cat anyone?