Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 15 May 2007

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• Talk:Gary Weiss/Archive 1

New York Times article about Weiss

Appearing as the subj of a NYT article is pretty notable, perhaps some of the admins/editors protecting the article page would like to incorporate this material. It would be an excellent supplement to the section on Weiss's book and commentary about Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and naked shorting. Here's the article with some details censored out as they are unmentionable:

"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html Piperdown 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't read the article because I didn't feel like paying the fee to do so, so I can understand why you posted the entire article here. Anyway, the NYTimes, is, of course, a major publication and if it's reporting on a severe and now public dispute between Overstock.com and Gary Weiss, then that merits at least a sentence about it in the article. Please be bold and add this article to the list of references, write a sentence or two about it in the text, and provide an inline citation to the source. Cla68 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to incorporate this material, other than an "external link". Here's some of the text that applies to the subject of this article, and so as to not violate copyrights, here's a sample - I'll leave it up to other more skilled editors on how to incorporate it into the article -- that could help others determine what is relevant to include without having to pay the NYT to peek at it. Since this is pretty controversial, I felt it is better to post it in talk first and let editors decide what if any should go into the article.

By DAN MITCHELL Published: January 20, 2007, The New York Times (excerpts)...The site...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Misplaced Pages and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores....Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Misplaced Pages entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards...Weiss became especially exercised after The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of {my ed: unmentionable} was Judd Bagley, Overstock’s director for social media. Calling Mr. Bagley “hideous” and a “nauseating spectacle,” Mr. Weiss lit into Mr. Byrne and his online lieutenant in post after post...

Piperdown 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that if someone wants to read the full article, they can just go back in the history for this page and click on the version that contained the full text (13 May 2007). The article is fairly critical of Overstock and Byrne, and neutral in it's reporting of Weiss' involvement. Thus, I don't think it should be a problem to use this article as a reference for a small section on the issue. I'll try to add a neutral, short section on the issue to the article in a short while. It might should also be mentioned in the articles for Overstock and Byrne. Cla68 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The website, not Byrne, had made the accusations against Weiss. I have fixed and added Weiss's denial from the Bloomberg article. Also have added details of far greater significance than this spat. As written, this section had put a pissing match with a CEO on a par with Project Klebnikov and Weiss's column in Forbes.com, which was not even mentioned. Also have added a link to Weiss' blog, as per WP:EL, but am not using it as a source.--Samiharris 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Sami. IIRC, the attack website in question also criticized reporter Susan Antilla, alleging that she should have revealed that she is married to a hedge fund manager. The problem? She isn't. When this was pointed out to the blogger in question, his initial response was to deny it, to claim that he had spent "thousands of moments on the internet" trying to find proof of her divorce.

When proof was shown him explicitly enough so that stonewalling like that seemed silly, he dropped the demand that she disclose her non-conflict from the non-marriage. Nice of him, eh?

Or are we talking about different attack websites? Anyway, Susan Antilla should probably get an article of her own. --Christofurio 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same attack site, and I agree that it has been well handled by Samiharris. --Mantanmoreland 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that reads, "Weiss has been attacked by an anonymous website whose operator has admitted to being an employee of Overstock.com." doesn't appear to be true. The front page of that website identifies its owner and operator as Judd Bagley. Also, the NYT article did potray the conflict between Weiss and Byrne as a "pissing match," even comparing the both of them to 14-year-old adolescents. As rewritten, the section no longer reflects the mood of the article. Cla68 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article accurately referred to the website as "anonymous" and as "anonymously written." That is correct. It is an anonymous website whose author was revealed by the New York Post to have been an employee of Overstock.com. I'm afraid that your version skipped over that rather significant point. As for the "mood" that you mention, I think that was a problem and that it has been corrected. It is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article to reflect the "mood" of one article, even a New York Times article. Certainly the "mood" of the Bloomberg piece made Overstock appear to be thuggish in that particular instance and Weiss as something of a hero. The current version provides appropriate weight to this issue and takes neither approach. Also, as Christofurio pointed out, what this essentially is about is the allegations of a non-notable website that is of the "attack" variety and appears not to be very accurate. --Samiharris 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As to your point about the current apperance of the website, that was evidently changed after the identity of the author was revealed by the New York Post. At the time the article was written, presumably, this was an anonymous website as stated in the Times article. I think that might be a point of confusion.--Samiharris 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the section as written now points out that the site was anonymous until "outed" by the press. Anyway, the NYT piece characterized the conflict as a "vicious online conflict" between Byrne and Weiss, giving equal balance to their accusations and counter-accusations, although apparently giving somewhat more credibility to Weiss' position. That's what I've tried to reflect in the way I wrote the section. Cla68 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article was apparently a quick-and-dirty, oversimplified "what's online" column. I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the Antilla piece, which quoted both parties and made it more apparent that what we have here is a corporate disinformation campaign. The Times article was somewhat labored in that it conjured up a dispute between Weiss and Byrne, when in fact Byrne was not the one on the attack here, but rather a website run by a surrogate. I think your initial misimpression was understandable and I am sure it was a good-faith error.--Samiharris 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting accurately what a source depicts isn't an "error" but the very way that we're supposed to conduct research from secondary sources. We're supposed to write what the sources are actually saying as much as we can, not what we think they should say. I read the Antilla piece and it much more takes Weiss' side in the conflict. I'll add a sentence or two reflecting her reporting to the section. Cla68 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You said in your original edit that Byrne had made the accusations against Weiss. That was an error, which I am assuming was made in good faith as the Times article said explicitly that the accusations were made anonymously by a website. I have reverted your insertion of those anonymous accusations. It is simply not fair of you to insert them here, as they are libelous in the extreme, and were made anonymnously. That simply is not fair to Mr. Weiss and appears to run counter to WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced material should be removed. The source of this was an anonymous website whose author was revealed to be the employee of a company having a major axe to grind against this person. Additionally you say that the identity of the operator of this website was revealed by the New York Times. Not correct. It was identified by the Post. Lastly, you made a correct link incorrect.--Samiharris 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Antilla, although she is identified as a "columnist," not a reporter, which is an important distinction. I think it's ok to repeat the accusations becuase they're in a major source and are labled as accusations along with Weiss' response. Cla68 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you were correct to remove the allegations. While it is true that they were republished in a major source, they were originally published anonymously and that is, at bottom, poor sourcing under WP:BLP. I think that this is a good example of the principle "when in doubt, don't." --Samiharris 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be argued that Antilla's comments could be removed also, since it leans the text towards Weiss' side. I don't, however, have that much of a problem with it, since it is sourced correctly and doesn't misrepresent what she was saying in her column. Cla68 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is all right. What she is saying is in the realm of opinion, and it is not especially inflammatory. The anonymous allegations were clearly libelous, however. That is an important distinction.--Samiharris 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two tweaks. "Attack" is correct, not "criticize" and also I fixed the link. It kept getting changed back to an incorrect link.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne and Bagely aren't anonymous, and the article from the New York Times clearly cited who they were. And the reporter clearly stated that they are accusing Gary Weiss of some pretty unethical behavior for a Journalist/Author, and in return Weiss is accusing them of lying about him. It this all notable? It's certainly context for Weiss's comments on Byrne being used in wikipedia, and it's also the only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year. This isn't from a blog, it's from the New York Times. If they are violating Gary's BLP rights, then imagine what Byrne must think about the New York Post, Joe Nocera, The Register, and Gary Weiss claiming they are qualified to issue psychological evaluations of a CEO who is pursuing some of their friends in court. Context is everything in accurate reporting and presenting a balanced article.Piperdown 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne is not accusing anyone in the Times article. The accusations are entirely by an anonymous website whose author was identified by the media. Those accusations were anonymous personal attacks and were about as poorly sourced as you can imagine. They were indeed accusations of unethical conduct. That is my point. They were libelous personal attacks. I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that this was the "only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year." As you can see by perusing the article, there were several other articles quoting Weiss, including one specifically relating to this issue by Susan Antilla, and I presume there were also book reviews. If you have an issue about BLP issues concerning Byrne, you should broach them on the talk pages of that article. I agree that there is a need for a balanced article, one free of libelous and poorly sourced material.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly take the position, and it is a reasonable one, that Bagley is a surrogate or "cat's paw" of Byrne and that it is really Byrne engaging in these attacks. However, Byrne denies that and the article does not say so. So we are left with anonymous personal attacks that, lo and behold, turn out to be by an employee of Overstock.com, a company criticized by Weiss. In light of all the circumstances, I think this controversy is dealt with in a remarkably even-handed fashion in this article as currently written. It is dealt with in an appropriate amount of space and without violating Misplaced Pages policies.--Samiharris 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The source isn't the website. The source is Dan Mitchell of the New York Times. So what should be cited if anything is Mitchell. He is the reliable source in in this instance. No one is trying to use the unmentionable site as a source for wikipedia. Should we go down a layer and do orig research on every WP:RS that is used in BLP's? That would be interesting - where did The Register's reporter get a PhD in Pysch. to determine Byrne's mental health? Does Weiss have a qualifications to determine that Byrne is having a "meltdown"? Nocera is using him as a source - Nocera is a WP:RS, but are his sources? Every biography on here uses WP:RS's that themselves use anonymous sources, biased named sources, and a myriad of other COI's. All we can do is use those WP:RS's. If Mitchell is libeling Weiss, that is between him and the NYT. I'm sure Byrne feels that every negative source used on his wikipedia entry is "borderline libeling" him, but they are from WP:RS's, aren't they? Interesting game going on here with wikipedia rules and how to selectively apply them.Piperdown 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so anxious to replicate a rather petty personal attack of the "smear" variety in Misplaced Pages. This is an attack on the character of a respected journalist, and it was made anonymously. I am surprised we are debating the inclusion of such an attack. It seems to me that any fair-minded editor would not sanction such material. It also troubles me as being a fly speck compared to the other material contained in this biography, of the same caliber as maintaining that Weiss cheats on his income taxes or takes bread from the store, and yet would be given the same amount of space as substantive material. Appearance of this material in the New York Times does not alleviate us, as Misplaced Pages editors, of our responsibility to not include libelous material in the project. Mr. Weiss may well have a lawsuit against the New York Times as well as Bagley, and perhaps Misplaced Pages as well if we include this material. None of the criticism of Byrne's actions and of his company have been of the same caliber as the petty character assassination that you seem to desire to include in this article.

The same issue came up in the Soros article pertaining to unfounded and unfair allegations that he somehow "collaborated" with the Nazis at the age of 14. Yes, these too were published in reputable publications but were not ultimately included in the Misplaced Pages article on George Soros. We should be proud of our attentiveness to excluding such material from Misplaced Pages and not zealously try to include it.Samiharris 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles