More on Steve Jobs

Again, as I did on January 13, I'll bend your ear with a quote from the Steve Jobs biography.  This concerns the contribution of a nowadays unheralded engineer named Ron Holt to the development of the Apple II, the pre-macintosh breakthrough computer that went on sale in 1977. The simple version of the story of Apple II is that Steve Wozniak did the basic engineering work, and that Steve Jobs sold it to the world. Here's the wikipedia version of events.

But there is more to it, and Ron Holt is a big part of that more. Wozniak, whose passion was the circuitry, didn't concern himself with the issue of heat. But bringing into a PC the power necessary to keep all those circuits functioning can make for a lot of heat, and that can require a fan, a low-tech contraption in itself, to disperse said heat. Jobs thought fans an inelegant solution, and looked for someone who could come up with a better one.

"Instead of a conventional linear power supply, Holt built one like those used in oscilloscopes. It switched the power on and off not sixty times per second, but thousands of times; this allowed it to store the power for far less time, and thus throw off less heat. 'That switching power supply was as revolutionary as the Apple II logic board was,' Jobs later said. 'Rod doesn't get a lot of credit for this in the history books, but he should. Every computer now uses switching power supplies, and they all rip off Rod's design.' For all of Wozniak's brilliance, this was not something he could have done. 'I only knew vaguely what a switching power supply was,' Woz admitted."

Wikipedia news

I came across a fascinating "conflict of interest" tidbit in some recent browsing in wikipedia.

I wanted a quick background briefing on Lord Myners, who is the City Minister in Her Majesty's Treasury. That makes him a central figure on financial-system regulatory issues.

Anyway, I found a brief bio article on Lord Myners, only to also find a box at the top informing me, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject." The box, whichs seems to be two months old, directs a reader to the article's Talk page for more.

Curious, I followed that direction. On the Talk Page one discovers only a brief notice to the effect that Lord Myners himself may have edited the article. Editing an article about one's self is a wiki no-no.

The content guideline titled "Autobiography" puts it this way: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.

The guideline would seem to express the ancient principle that "no one can be a judge in his own case," -- or in this case a "neutral editor" about himself.

I personally find it hard to believe that any net-savvy individual who becomes aware of an article about himself on wikipedia would not be tempted to edit it. Nor do I think that should necessarily be frowned upon, since one is usually better informed about one's own life than the average wiki editor!, although thoroughly re-writing one's biography, or creating an autobiography in the social media context, should be frowned upon.

The proper lines are still quite hazy.

I don't break the rules (I'm sneaky that way).

Another dispatch from the lipstick wars, WR battlefront.

I've written of wikipedia and its conflicts over "sock puppetry" here often enough. I'll try not to repeat myself unduly.

I don't think I've ever mentioned Wikipedia Review (WR), which is a website designed by and for those with a wikipedia-related grievance, something of a "shadow site," if you will.

I've only recently discovered that I've become a subject of some discussion at Wikipedia Review. This seems to have been set off by a piece I wrote in the HedgeWorld blog, back when HW was still a semi-autonomous newsgathering organization within the Reuters family and when they still employed the likes of me.

I wrote in that piece about certain wikipedia articles that had a direct or indirect connection with the "naked short selling" debate, and about the contention -- in that context especially hot -- about who was a sock puppet of whom.

I also was explicit in this piece that I have edited wikipedia myself. I gave the name I use in that context, Christofurio. So, just to be clear: the identity of Christopher Faille and Christofurio isn't something that anybody else had to do any detective work to discover. I have been very clear about it.

Another point: within wikipedia, I am always and only "Christofurio," -- so nobody ever has to wonder whether I am using two or more names strategically. There's only the one.

This is all simple enough, and unremarkable, one would think. Yet I find myself mentioned in the Wikipedia Review as if I were being especially sneaky.

Here's a direct quote from someone who writes there with the name Piperdown.

I think the reason Christofurio hasn't been publically curbed on editing Byrne/NSS/Weiss/etc is that he's been very careful to not actually do any editing that could be blatantly cited as breaking any WP rules.

Um ... right. The reason I haven't been disciplined for breaking any rules is that I haven't broken any rules.

Likewise, the reason I've never been imprisoned for burglary is that I've never burgled. Pretty crafty, eh?

I don't know what axe exactly Piperdown is grinding here (actually I think I do, but I'll let it pass) but it does seem that he is oddly perplexed by the spectacle of someone who joins a collective editing enterprise, uses one and only one name, edits as he thinks best, sticks to the spirit as well as the letter of the collective enterprise, gives his reasons for his edits in the Talk pages, and generally comports himself according to Hoyle.

If any of that makes me remarkable, I'll see if I can keep it up.

Wikipedian Puppets

More on wikipedia and and on yours truly.

One regular source of dispute on the wikipedia talk pages is the urgent question, "who is a sock puppet of whom?"

When editors (anyone with an internet connection and an interest in a question under discussion is an 'editor') dispute issues on the Talk pages, it frequently happens that one will try to gang up on the others by pretending to be two or more different people. When Joe says, "we should change the opening sentence of this article," but Moe replies, "No, we should leave that sentence as it is," then Joe creates Larry who says, "Joe is right, the sentence needs more work."

Ideally, that fools Moe into thinking, "gee, if Joe and this other fellow agree, maybe I'm wrong."

That's the simple version, there are endless variants. But in the case I've posited, Larry is a "sock puppet" of Joe.

The accusation "Joe uses sock puppetry" can be a devastating one, and the Joes of wikipedia resist, causing endless brouhahas.

In one endless, or just endless-seeming, debate over alleged socks, somebody wrote that two or more regular posters frequently use the otherwise uncommon phrase "putting lipstick on a pig," which sounds so idiosyncratic that they just must be the same person in reality.

Wiser heads prevailed on that proposed test, though. "Yes, the sampling problem will exist for any sort of style analysis. For example ... the expression 'lipstick on a pig' is not all that uncommon, and it would be hard (maybe impossible) to determine what percentage of editors at large use that expression."

Indeed. It was to prove this point that one of the warring editors cited the work of one Christopher Faille, specifically a book review I wrote in July 2006.

The review was of a book written by finance journalist Gary Weiss, called WALL STREET VERSUS AMERICA. My review, as it happens, was titled Lipstick Brands Change, the Pig's the Same.

As it happens, Gary Weiss himself (the biographical wiki article about him, as well as references to him in various other articles on matters discussed in that book) is the center of much wikipedia controversy. Controversies over what the articles should say quickly become controversies over who is using socks and who is falsely accusing who else of using socks. So the fact that my review was a review of that particular book seems to have made it especially valuable in spreading recognition that "pig/lipstick" is a fairly common trope among those of us who follow and write about financial matters. Putting the idea that sharing this trope makes one editor the puppet of another ... back in the sty where it belongs.

I'm glad to help. Cash will be accepted in lieu of more symbolic expressions of gratitude.

Those of you to whom this is all Greek -- you're missing nothing. Those who think I'm making it all up in the desperate need to create a bogus entry for my blog, your suspicions are easily put to rest.

"Extrapolated" Conclusions

Judd Bagley, the proprietor of the blog "AntiSocialMedia," maintains in his latest posting there that nobody has ever shown anything he's said to be wrong.

Then he adds a neat little parenthetical qualification, for which I will personally take credit. He writes, "Yet, with a single (quickly rectified) exception, every conclusion extrapolated here has proven accurate."

The exception that I presume he has in mind involves a reporter named Susan Antilla, of Bloomberg News, who has written critically of Mr. Bagley's favorite company, Overstock dot com. That's always a good way to draw Bagley's attention, which it seems to have done.

Antilla is also the ex-wife of Dennis Leibowitz. For the particulars of why that's important to Mr. Bagley see what I wrote in September.

Anyway, after Bagley went out on a limb on an IV bulletin board and referred to the present-tense Antilla-Leibowitz marriage, he was immediately informed of the divorce. He chose not to believe it, and to write up his disbelief in Antisocial. He even suggested Antilla's divorce lawyer may have failed to file the appropriate papers, so she may still be married without knowing it.

Now, this is a matter on which there can't be a lot of room for confusion. I happen to be a member of the bar of the state of Connecticut (that is itself a matter of public record, as easily verified as is marital status!) and I know that a divorce can be verified with ease.

Anyway, after this was explained sufficiently to Bagley, he eventually deleted the babbling from his website. Since he's been called on it before, I do believe that's the "one exception" to his accurate "extrapolations" he now acknowledges so fleetingly.

We shouldn't let him off the hook too easily here, especially given the odd word "extrapolation" itself. He made a false statement of fact on an easily verified matter. What was supposedly extrapolated?

I'm not inclined to accept his implicit factual claim (in that parentheses) that this was his only factual error. He hasn't hired me as a fact checker, after all. But I'm pretty confident that is the factual error that inspired the parenthesis, because of an exchange he and I had on the subject in September of last year.

At that time, Bagley e-mailed me to note that I had referred to "demonstrably false assertions" of his. He asked which assertions were those. I replied, referencing Susan Antilla. He responded to that, claiming that he hadn't made the marital claim about Susan Antilla in his blog, only on IV. That was a demonstrably false assertion itself, as I pointed out to him in his reply. Deleting something from a blog doesn't mean it was never there. Deletion isn't a memory hole.

He replied telling me, "Forget Susan Antilla," [I'm sure he would like me to] and asking me for other examples of his falsehood, on the theory that learning of them would help him develop as a writer. At this point I was getting tired of the game, and I didn't reply.

As I had expected, he soon thereafter posted a very long blog entry in which my name plays a very small part. He puts me on a list of his blog's "harshest critics" and complains in general that none of us have replied to his e-mail. "My e-mail must be broken" he says, in what I suppose is meant to be irony or sarcasm or something stylish.

Just in case anybody who read that has now found your way here. Mr. Bagley's e-mail isn't broken. I did reply to his initial request about whether he had said anything demonstrably false, and I pointed out to him that he had. He told me to "Forget Susan Antilla." I did so, and accordingly did not respond subsequently. Now I see that all of this rates a parentheses from him.

Ah, so I have not lived and breathed entirely in vain.

Why am I taking note of it only now, five months later? Well, because Bagley doesn't occupy many of my neurons for very long and I've let time slip by occupied with other matters.

But I come back to it because I do feel a certain non-emotive indignation at being listed, as I now have been, as among Mr. Bagley's blog's "harshest critics." That's language that just makes you say: huh? If I'm among that blog's harshest critics, it leads a charmed life indeed. I've written of it rarely, and if any "harshness" has crept into my writing on the subject, I'm unaware of it. Correcting the Antilla error isn't harshness. It's fact finding. Positing the absense of any need for an article about Mr. Bagley on wikipedia may be as "harsh" as I've gotten. But, hey, there's no article on wikipedia about me, either, and that's honky-dory at this end.