Are you profitable?
Byrne: Yes, that's real GAAP profit, not Amazon-bullshit-accounting profit.

In fact, it was neither. Overstock.com was then a private company, but it later revealed, when it filed for an IPO, that it had lost $13.8 million in 2001. With the latest financial restatements, it's been revealed that the company has never made an annual profit since its inception. And yet Byrne would rather blame a conspiracy of rogue traders for his company's woes.

A refresher on naked shorts: In a regular short sale, a trader borrows shares and sells them, profiting if the stock drops in price; a "naked" short skips the step of borrowing shares. How can you sell something you don't own? A loophole in stock-trading rules that gives traders three days to settle up. "Naked shorts" is also possibly the most hilariously homoerotic term for a trading scheme yet invented.

Byrne loudly insists that investigative reporter Gary Weiss, formerly of BusinessWeek, edited the Wikipedia entry on naked shorting. Asked by The Register, a U.K. tech publication, Weiss denied this charge. Byrne's undocumented conspiracy theories have won him few friends on Wikipedia, where editors punctiliously insist on mainstream-media verification of all charges, unless an unproved assertion happens to suit their agendas.

And that's where Jimmy Wales comes in. One has to think Wales, a former stock trader himself — though not a very successful one — has got his former colleagues' back. Wales has not visibly weighed into the Byrne argument. But he rarely does so publicly, preferring to use private mailing lists to direct Wikipedia editors, as he did when his then-girlfriend Rachel Marsden prevailed on him to brighten up her entry.

So, Patrick, there's your solution: Stop whining on Wikipedia about how ill-treated you are. It's become clear that the only way to get a speedy revision to your WIkipedia entry is a personal appeal to Wales himself.

So ring up Jimmy directly. Tell him how much you admire the cheerful cynicism behind his supposedly altruistic work. Brush up on your Ayn Rand quotes. Offer a "donation." Or how about a very graphic, in-person demonstration of "naked shorts," if that's what it takes? Just remember: Wikipedia isn't about the sum of all human knowledge. It's about what humanity can do for Jimmy.

(Photo by markjhandel, photoillustration by Jackson West)

Byrne, not shy to open his mouth, often uses the handle "Hannibal" (which he apparently wants everyone to know is a reference to the historic general who failed to conquer Rome rather than the fictional cannibal) to post at Overstock.com's Investor Village and other discussion boards. The CEO claims "he never hides his true identity and always signs his name when he posts under his online handle," but Gary Weiss observes that Byrne does not always make his true identity transparent.

Paul Kedrosky, who we enjoy and link to often, tells the Times he thinks the practice is widespread:

'I'm convinced it's broader than anybody knows," he said, "I'm convinced this is the tip of the iceberg.' Mr. Kedrosky said that one chief executive recently told him that he almost had to 'chew off my right arm to keep from participating' in an online forum. He declined to name the company but said, 'It's a hard temptation to walk away from.'

Unlike his CEO pal, Kedrosky is man enough to jump in the comments under his own name when the temptation to respond online is too great to resist. I, myself, have to admit to making the mistake of using a false identity. But not everyone is gutsy enough to admit it. So, readers, do you know of, or suspect, any executives or bloggers who are secretly posting online under a false identity? If so, send them in.