Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet It's funny.  Laugh.

Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia 605

Posted by michael
from the there's-always-one dept.
rlandmann writes "John Patrick Ennis, whose nutty predictions as Sollog (Son of Light, Light of God) are familiar to many usenetters, may have bitten off more than he could chew when he picked Wikipedia as his latest vehicle for spamvertising." Click through for the rest of rlandmann's story.

Early last week an anonymous editor with a posting style remarkably like the one widely believed to be that of Sollog himself contributed this article to the encyclopedia, boasting of Sollog's prophesizing prowess and mathematical genius. Less than twenty-four hours later, the article was looking a little more balanced and encyclopedic. Along with Sollog's claims, it now carried the revelation that not everyone is as convinced of the accuracy of Sollog's power of prediction as he himself is, along with links to some rather unflattering appraisals of his work.

A week of spectacular net.kookery has since transpired, replete with vandalism of the article, bizarre legal threats, long semi-coherent rants with LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS, a rich bounty of links to Ennis-run sites, and a legion of anonymous posters with exactly the same writing style as one another all strenuously affirming that they are individual and distinct "fans" of Sollog and not the man himself. Unable to accept that Wikipedia's policy of presenting a Neutral Point of View means that an article on Sollog would have to include both pro- and anti-Sollog material, and unable to force other Wikipedia editors to accept his version of reality, Ennis has taken instead to making hostile phone calls to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales at his home, and setting up his very own Wikipedia and Wales hate site.

Whether or not Sollog really did predict Princess Diana's death, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, the crash of TWA flight 800, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and most of the natural disasters in the US over the last few years, he doesn't seem to have foreseen his inability to control the picture that Wikipedia presents of him to the world.

See here for the current revision of the article, which may or may not be currently in a vandalized state.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:50PM (#11083522)
    That he will get first post on Slashdot.
  • by October_30th (531777) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:51PM (#11083529) Homepage Journal
    Expect Slashdot and Taco hatesites soon after...

    Sollog the "Varnisher" is not someone to be messed with. ;-)

  • Sollog? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Folmer (827037) * on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:53PM (#11083553)
    The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?
    • by kmmatthews (779425) * <krism@mailsnare.net> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:57PM (#11083618) Homepage Journal
      http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ [wikipediasucks.com] - check out the slant on his site, and you'll immediately have a good idea of his creditability...
    • Re:Sollog? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by learn fast (824724) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:10PM (#11083782)
      He's a troll who succeeded in getting a entire slashdot story about him.
    • Re:Sollog? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The proof is in the history of the article. Sollog created an article all about Sollog [wikipedia.org] which was basically spam for his highly dubious resume on Wikipedia. Then he got affronted that anyone dare flag it for removal, removed the flag, had it flagged again, removed it, etc. Then he started to melt down, vandalizing other pages on Wikipedia, exhorting others to and even producing a defamatory site about Wiki's founder. So Wikipedians decided to do a real article on the loser, sticking strictly to the known fac
    • Re:Sollog? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Poltras (680608) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:44PM (#11084215) Homepage
      I will attempt to give you some hint and ressources to understand the topic :) Hope it will be enough (note that I don't care to be moded down as troll by TOH followers).

      Read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] as well as its history for a start.

      Then what may interest you is that WikiPediA Sucks [wikipediasucks.com] is run by himself (as said in article), but also that most of the proofs [247news.net] that is said against wikipedia comes from a single source, that is, Adoni Corporation.

      you shall note too, that The E undergroud [theeunderground.com], which sells "SEX and DEATH video" (cited from the website), is also owned by the same [1ao.com] company, as said here [internic.net] and here [internic.net], with sollog.com [sollog.com] proof here [internic.net]. THIS IS THE SAME CORPORATION, if you read whois carefully. So he accuses a guy of being associated with BOMIS (which is true or false, i dunno, whatever) and is HIMSELF SELLING porn and death videos over the net. That kills all credibility he might have before.

      This is just the peak of the iceberg, though, but I'm too lazy to write much more, but it gives you a general picture of the guy (actually, I'm against him, so maybe some member of TOH would want to reply, and I'll appreciate the opened discussion with him/her).

      • Re:Sollog? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gamaliel (413232) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:59PM (#11085266) Homepage
        The "author" of most (all?) of the "news" on the 247news site, David Alexander, is Sollog himself. No doubt all of you are shocked and surprised by this news. Here's one reporter's amusing tale of dealing with Sollog and Alexander: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/022102/sl.howcol .shtml
    • by wasted (94866) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:49PM (#11085079)
      The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?

      He's the guy from the fourth book of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker Trilogy - you know, Sollog, and Thanks for All the Fish.

      I know that was bad, but I couldn't help myself.
  • by Skyshadow (508) * on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:53PM (#11083555) Homepage
    An edit war on Wikipedia, you say? Full of frothing ranting and biased opinions and juvenile behavior? My God, who could have forseen such a thing!

    There was a once upon a time when I figured that Wikipedia could work, become a sort of collection of the intelligence and expertise of the masses on the internet. I've run across enough blatent inacurracies over the last year or so, however, that I can't look at it as anything but a basic starting place for research now. Two main problems as I see it (this is hardly new revelation):

    (1) Everyone's viewpoint tends to get reflected, even it's just plain wrong. For instance, look at the entry on the Children's Crusade of 1212 [wikipedia.org] -- it presents three versions of what happened, but only one (the last one) is "right", meaning that it's the version backed by modern research. The ability to site sources or research or present an authoratative case is outclassed by the ability to have the time on one's hands to hit the "edit" button a lot.
    (2) Not all articles get many eyeballs. The Wiki tends to work best when there are a lot of people looking at the article, so little-travelled articles can have downright bizarre inaccuracies. They fall victim to either misunderstanding, bad source information or the maliciousness of those few anti-social morons who think wrecking the Wiki makes them cool.

    While this is an interesting model of the internet at large, it's not a good thing in terms of being a useful resource.

    Just as Linux and other open source projects aren't really "open" in terms of accepting everything anyone throws at them, so must Wikipedia find a way to become more selective in what it accepts. The Wiki itself is such a good idea that there's just got to be a way to make it work, but frankly I can't work out a paradigm that will save it from the issues it has now.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      I like wikipedia. Not for the important things but the fun triva things like warp speed (how much is warp 3? ), stardate, chewabaca defense etc. I find them very accuarate
    • by Zocalo (252965) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:01PM (#11083667) Homepage
      An edit war on Wikipedia, you say? Full of frothing ranting and biased opinions and juvenile behavior? My God, who could have forseen such a thing!

      Apparently not "Sollog", which kind of lends credence to his detractor's arguments that he can't predict jack, does it not?

    • by letdinosaursdie (809029) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#11083732) Homepage
      Bias and innaccuracy reflected clearly in arguments on the talk page still beat bias on behalf of a corporation, because it is clearly visible to anyone with interest. Some pages may be victims of controversy, but the vast majority presend the most coherent and well balanced information available on the Internet. So long as individuals are aware that Wikipedia is a work in progress, they can avoid the pitfalls of collaboration. Bias isn't the problem... invisible bias is.
    • by a whoabot (706122) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:10PM (#11083781)
      Look at it like this.

      It's released under the GPL, and all revision are stored. There is correct information on Wikipeida, and lots of it.

      In the future, someone could easily compile all of it, do quality assurance and fact checking, choose the best revisions, etc. and then release that with their name behind it with the tag "as correct as any other encyclopedia, but with a whole lot more."
      • by a whoabot (706122) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:16PM (#11083861)
        To add.

        There could be like two sites. Wikipedia as it is now, is like a Beta, and then you have the assured Release version. When articles are deemed to be correct and of acceptable quality they can be thrown into the Release version, which is not editable.
        • by MilenCent (219397) <johnwh@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:36PM (#11084885) Homepage
          That's essentially the model that h2g2 [bbc.co.uk] uses, it has a vast "unedited" Guide that's quirky and idiosyncratic and funny and sometimes untrustworthy, and an "edited" guide that contains articles that have been looked over by staff and been approved. Articles are plainly marked by whether they're in the Edited or Unedited sections.

          For this to work in Wikipedia, they'd probably have to introduce a flag that will identify a page as Edited. Searches would probably have to turn up Edited first, or prominently in some way, maybe with a little icon by their titles. Anyone would be able to modify an Edited page, but the result would be an unedited version of that page. Each pages' last approval would be the "official" one for that page.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:12PM (#11083817)
      The poster seriously mis-represents the "Child Crusade" article. It seems to be a VERY GOOD article on the subject and NOT fraught with competing viewpoints. The several "viewpoints" are important to the topic and should be
      mentioned.

      He criticizes Wikipedia as "inaccurate" but provides no evidence.

      Though he does mention Linux. That should give hima a "+4 insightful". Too bad hed didn't mention Apple, then it'd be "+5, informative".

    • I never felt that Wikipedia was meant to be used more as a starting point for information. I think that's exactly why it's such a wonderful resource. It gives me the opportunity to have access to a bunch of different perspectives on a topic, some of which may be wrong, and then have a starting point for my own research and knowledge. If, for instance, I was writing a paper on how Kirkegaard (Sorry I was a philosophy major) along with World War I and World War II, layed the foundation for existentialism.
    • by silicon-pyro (217988) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:19PM (#11083899)
      What wikipedia needs is to implement /. style moderation! Then every point of view will be represented fairly! Ni!
    • by Deadstick (535032) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:36PM (#11084105)
      (1) Everyone's viewpoint tends to get reflected, even it's just plain wrong. For instance, look at the entry on the Children's Crusade of 1212 [wikipedia.org] -- it presents three versions of what happened, but only one (the last one) is "right", meaning that it's the version backed by modern research.

      I'm gonna have to call "missing the point" on that one. I'd say the text quite clearly favors the third version, and gives it the last word. You can't very well debunk without telling what you're debunking...

      rj

    • Worth noting, if you read the Children's Crusade article [wikipedia.org], it does seem reasonably clear that the final version is the more accepted version and does provide arguments and evidence supporting the correct interpretation.

      Frankly, no disrespect to the parent poster, I get a little annoyed when people site inaccuracies on non-controversial Wikipedia topics as evidence of its inherent failure. The whole point of Wikis is to make the change once you see an error and back it up with links and other evidence! No

    • by Have Blue (616) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:03PM (#11084455) Homepage
      Wikipedia could [...] become a sort of collection of the intelligence and expertise of the masses on the internet.

      Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened.
    • by Angst Badger (8636) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:08PM (#11084523)

      I've run across enough blatent inacurracies over the last year or so, however, that I can't look at it as anything but a basic starting place for research now.

      This is pretty much true for any encyclopedia if you're writing for anything other than a high school class.

      The ability to site sources or research or present an authoratative case is...

      ...greatly bolstered by knowing the difference between "site" and "cite", and being able to spell "authoritative" correctly.

    • by sampson7 (536545) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:58PM (#11085235)
      Hang with me for a little while, this may seem disjointed -- but the parent posting actually has far more to teach us about Wikipedia and the nature of internet research than the actual article does. So here are a few observations that might bring my response to this post into context:

      A couple days ago I got into a long debate with a PhD candidate/teaching assistant about how to teach an introductory college course on sourcing and reliance on internet materials in an introductory research course. Having taught something similar, I was surprised when she suggested that there is little (perhaps even nothing?) on the internet that can be reliably cited to. Or, to give her more credit (the actual argument was far more nuanced... or at least it seemed so after a couple of beers), her point is that there is always a more authoritative source available than the internet. And since students should be required to cite the most authoritative source they can find, it is extremely rare that the internet copy of a source should be cited to. Citing to the internet, in her opinion, is a crutch for citing to "real" paper publications (or even proprietary internet databases, CD-ROM compilations, etc.)

      So while I clicked on the article more out of amusement value then anything else, the parent poster provides an awesome example of the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Coming into this thread, I'd heard of the "Children's Crusade" before, but it was just a historical tidbit that I'd picked up somewhere and really knew nothing about.

      I was intrigued by the parent post's rather categorical dismissal of two of the three explanations -- and not know what those explanations were -- I clicked through and read the article.

      The first paragraph of the article states that "Several conflicting accounts of this event exist, and the facts of the situation continue to be a subject of debate among historians."

      Okay. So from the very beginning we know we are dealing with an "event" where the facts are not entirely clear. But scanning the rest of the article, it seems clear that whatever happened happened in the early 13th century.

      The first two versions are then laid out. It's a real tear jerker -- young children coming together in a spontaneous uprising to fight the forces of evil -- who then meet a gruesome end. (Sound familiar? [deanforamerica.com].) And it's this version of the story that this painter [focusdesign.com] was thinking about when he put ink-to-canvas or what Kurt Vonnegut [barnesandnoble.com] was thinking when he subtitled Slaughterhouse-Five "Or, the Children's Crusade, a Duty-Dance with Death", or why the term was incorporated into the title [epinions.com] of the classic submarine movie Das Boot or why the incomparable Neil Gainman used it as a title for one of his comics [barnesandnoble.com].

      History is not just comprised of facts. Myths and legands sometimes have a far greater impact on our physche than do Cold Hard Facts. This is a perfect example. This significance of the Children's Crusade is not whether it actually ever happened. The historical "fact" is an interesting academic question that makes for a fun historical sluething exercise.

      So, back to the article. After depicting the historically and culturally significant version of the Children's Crusade, the article goes on to say "Some historians speculate that the entire crusade is fiction, as there is no real evidence that any such event occurred, in the 13th or in any other century. Research done in the early 1980s indicates that the Children's Crusade began as a misinterpretation of a 1212 religious movement among the landless poor...
      • Wow, that was fantastic. I've struggled with the question of whether Wikipedia should be cited or not. Ultimately, for me it serves a much greater purpose than being authoritative--it just scratches me when I itch. I know of no other place to go where I can get broad explanation of a general knowledge topic I just need to learn about. Certainly there are points and even entire articles that are incorrect. But on the whole, I find the articles try earnestly to be fair and present multiple valid points o
  • Okay.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by brilinux (255400) <kg4qxk@@@arrl...net> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:53PM (#11083566) Homepage Journal
    Ten bucks says that in the next 10 minutes, it is modified about 1200 more times.
  • by rackhamh (217889) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:54PM (#11083574)
    ... that the top-rated comment in this thread will be +5, funny.
  • by kmmatthews (779425) * <krism@mailsnare.net> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:54PM (#11083579) Homepage Journal
    I'm thinking this motherfucker bit off more than he can chew with this one.

    http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ [wikipediasucks.com] probably qualifies as libel. Anyone want to set up a donation fund to take him out? (If Mr. Wales is interested in filing suit, that is. Unlikely, but we can hope?)

    Beyond that [whois.net]:

    TOH c/o AIS

    Domain Register (dnr@theasi.net)
    +1.3863165425
    Fax: +1.5555555555
    4613 University Dr Number 311
    Coral Springs, ST 33067
    US
    Wanna slashdot his phone?
    • I'm thinking this motherfucker bit off more than he can chew with this one.

      You talking to me bitch? I predict my foot up yo' ass.
    • by m0rph3us0 (549631) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:00PM (#11083664)
      The problem with libel laws is that it is not libel if you aren't lying. Saying that something sucks is an opinion.
      • by blogtim (804206) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:15PM (#11083852) Homepage
        Steven Pressman has a great piece on libel laws in the United States [state.gov].
        For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however,
        someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false. [emphasis mine]
      • by l4m3z0r (799504) <kevin@@@uberstyle...net> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:56PM (#11084349)
        The problem with libel laws is that it is not libel if you aren't lying.

        No thats whats good about libel laws. This stemmed from the fact that in the 1770's in england libel was still libel even if what was said was true. So if you were a nanny and you molested children and I told your clients that you molested children and they fired you, you could claim libel against me and that was acceptable to the court I'd be paying you for lost wages even though you had no right to there services.

        The founding fathers realized however that this is crap, newspapers and citizens need to be able to report the truth no matter how damaging it is to public figures.

        If you want, go back to a society where you are afraid to speak the truth about public figures for fear of getting sued. I sure as hell won't.

  • Wikipediasucks.com (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway (585204) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:55PM (#11083583) Homepage
    Stooping to such levels as to make fun of a mans wife and child publicly on the internet lends ZERO credibility to an argument and makes me lose all respect for a person that would do such a thing.
  • Every single one of you will be dead by 2152.
    • by I don't want to spen (638810) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:03PM (#11083701) Journal
      I'm okay then. I'm married!
    • The year is 2678, and I am using the greatest invention of the millenium to post to slashdot from the future!

      HAHAHA!

      And I *still* can only get a damn ~500,000 uid. Must be something with slashdot.org rejecting my 512bit IPv19 address...
      • by FreeUser (11483) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:36PM (#11084111)
        The year is 2678, and I am using the greatest invention of the millenium to post to slashdot from the future!

        HAHAHA!

        And I *still* can only get a damn ~500,000 uid. Must be something with slashdot.org rejecting my 512bit IPv19 address...


        Nope, sorry. There's nothing wrong with your ipv19 to ipv4 gateway. At the request of several prestigious software archaeological societies and organizations, we in the 37th century set up a temporal filter rejecting all registration requests to slashdot from the 27th century prior to the issuance of slashdot id 516229, ipv19 or otherwise.

        Of course, I would have had a slashdot ID of #1, but those rat bastards in the 43rd are blocking all packets temporally synced to all timeframes prior to slashdot ID #11483.
  • by techstar25 (556988) <techstar25 AT cfl DOT rr DOT com> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:56PM (#11083596) Homepage Journal
    You don't have to be psychic to have seen this coming.
  • by the talented rmg (812831) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:57PM (#11083619)
    There's always the perennial objection that Wikipedia lacks credibility, but stories like this should show the skeptics how an open system like this actually works. In time, the thousands of eyes approach weeds out questionable content, leaving only publication quality articles.

    It's hard to say what impact netizens like SOLLOG will have in the end. On one level, you might say his predictions would provide Wikipedia with yet another dimension of informative content -- the fourth dimension: time. That is, while Wikipedia can say something about the past, and now with Wikinews, the present, maybe SOLLOG will provide needed insight into the future.

    On the other hand, such atrocious formatting can only damage the credibility and readability of Wikimedia. Editors will have to handle this issue carefully and balance these considerations. In the end, I'm confident the open model of editing will strike the right compromise between compelling content and responsible formatting.
    • There's always the perennial objection that Wikipedia lacks credibility, but stories like this should show the skeptics how an open system like this actually works. In time, the thousands of eyes approach weeds out questionable content, leaving only publication quality articles.

      OK. I know that this is slightly off-topic, but I have to respond to this comment. This whole fiasco is a demonstration of why Wikipedia is NOT reliable. It could be 100% accurate today, but somebody will screw with it tomorrow and mess it up. Yes, I know that it can be changed back. But then you can get into silly little wars like this. Also, the many eyes theory works great for simple stuff. If sombody missed the date of birth of George Washington, it would likely be caught. If somebody missed the mass of Tungsten by 2%, it might slip by.

      In my opinion, Wikipedia needs cement. A new article would be like wet cement. You can change it any way that you want. But, as it ages, it becomes harder and harder to change.

      One possible solution would be to have a "trustability" number associated with each article. As the article ages, or gets read, the "trustability" increases. Then, only people who have a high enough trustability rating themselves can change it.

      Sounds like a neat idea, right? Maybe not. People can be experts in a very narrow field. A PhD student might be studying molecular biology, and perfectly qualified to change an entery on chemistry. But he might not (and probably would not) know jack about Russian Literature.

      So, in short, the system is subtly broken in a sense that will always allow people to question its content. How do you allow only qualified people to make changes? The "many-eyes" has only produced an article that changes every five minutes, at least in this case.
      • This whole fiasco is a demonstration of why Wikipedia is NOT reliable.

        But it still is Informative.

        Only a fool would take the word of a wiki for the absolute truth but the smart will and can use it for their benefit.
        Considering the wealth of articles and subjects Wikipedia is now carrying (and in many languages) there are only few of these 'Fiasco's' as you chose to name it.
        But your idea for a 'Trustability' rating could be a solution, in my view possibly better than splitting up in 'Edited' vs. 'Undeti

    • Because not every expert reads wikipedia and not everyone who considers themselve an expert is an expert and because facts are often just plain wrong even if 99% of people think they are true.

      So what does this mean for wikipedia? Well at best it can contain nothing more then a grey goo of widely accepted facts hopefully most of wich are "true". Group think.

      At worst it will contain a complety random mix of hard facts, accepted facts and plain errors. Anybodies guess as to wich is wich.

      Usually with "facts"

    • The biggest impact SOLLOG will have on Wikipedia is that people will find social methods of implementing screening processes. Either that, or they will be drowned in a sea of bullshit.

      So far, the latter hasn't happened. Maybe not enough nuts have considered the potential for causing harm through it, so far, but they're more likely to now.

      There are only two ways of ensuring a good ratio of signal to noise - filter by externally imposed rules, or filter by cooperatively accepted principles. You're going t

  • Donate to WikiPedia (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a great testament to wikipedia's power to create a true fair and balanced source of information. Imagine what would happen if we got our news this way too, where when you read some bullsh*t spin you could correct it and present the information with a neutral viewpoint.

    The media is not going to do this, only the people can. So if you are not going to edit articles please donate some money to wikimedia so this neutral source of information can flourish.
  • Then let this be our final battle [google.com]!

    Nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh...

    Dih-dih-dih-dih-dih...

    Shu-shu-shu-shu-shu...
  • Here's the goods (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alexburke (119254) * <slashdotmail AT alexburke DOT ca> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:59PM (#11083639)
    At the moment, the article is blank. This version [wikipedia.org], however, is quite informative.
  • by Refrag (145266) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @01:59PM (#11083646) Homepage
    If one of Sollog's most famous "math discoveries" is The Fibonacci Algorithm, then why isn't it called "The Sollog Algorithm?"
  • by hambonewilkins (739531) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:00PM (#11083652)
    Shouldn't he have registered wikipediasucks.com in advance as his psychic powers would have allowed him to see the impact of his actions. Further, shouldn't he already have a slashdotsucks.com already? And, shouldn't I already have a reply to this message from him telling me I'm a fool?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:00PM (#11083662)
    Time Cube is the only answer!
  • wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    another shitty, boring "wikipedia-got-vandalized, holy shit!" story. this is not stuff that matters.
  • Nuts (Score:5, Funny)

    by cyocum (793488) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:01PM (#11083673) Homepage

    When I visited it, Wikipedia read "Sollog eats his nuts." I would assume that Sollog eats nuts since eating nuts is part of a balanced healthy diet. Whether they are his or not is a matter of speculation unless you are Sollog (prognostication may or may not be included).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:01PM (#11083674)
    Did he predict the Bush Re-election?
  • Yawn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BadDoggie (145310) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#11083727) Homepage Journal
    You would think he might've learned the lesson that Scientology [xenu.net] did about a decade ago. I reverted the page once after he cleared it. It's locked right no since the /.ers are being especially stupid today ("Sollog eats his nuts." -- yes, rapier wit).

    He'll keep trying to edit the page and the rest of the Net will point out what a lying sack of shit he is, just as we've been doing with Scientology [xenu.net]. woof.

  • by WizardRahl (840191) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#11083733)
    He's a pornographer AND an objectivist??? This guy is my new hero!
  • by Phidoux (705500) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:11PM (#11083804) Homepage
    I bet he had a rough time at school.

  • by Enigma_Man (756516) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:14PM (#11083837) Homepage
    Does anybody else picture "Dr. Orpheus" from the Venture Bros. cartoon when you read about this guy? Complete with the methods of speaking and all? I sure do, and it's funny.

    -Jesse
  • by feloneous cat (564318) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:15PM (#11083849)
    As someone whose father is one of the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, it really pisses me off when someone sez "I predicted the whole thing".

    Bullshit.

    It's easy to sit around on your ass and "predict" after the event happens. But had he known one GODDAMN thing about OKC, he MIGHT have warned everyone ahead of time.

    Last I checked, Dad never got a phone call.
    • But had he known one GODDAMN thing about OKC, he MIGHT have warned everyone ahead of time.
      Isn't there a law in the US that if you know that a voilent crime, such as murder, is going to take place and do not warn the appropriate authorities that you can be held accountable? If so since this guy says that he predicted it, he should be arrested.
  • by davidmcn (606752) <dmcnelisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:34PM (#11084078) Homepage
    Is a completely available domain name. Now, who is going to buy it up?
  • Carasso! (Score:3, Funny)

    by meehawl (73285) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {maps.lwaheem}> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:45PM (#11084234) Homepage Journal
    Usenet? It's just a shadow of its former glory. I was there for the heady days of the Carasso Wars [google.com]. Later on I worked with him and found him to be just as intriguingly infuriatingly trollish in person. For more info see alt.sex.carasso [google.com]. You can also check out
    alt.flame.hairy-douchebag.roger-david-carasso
  • From sollog.com (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abertoll (460221) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:58PM (#11084377) Homepage Journal
    "It has come to my attention that Jim Wales is harassing TOH Members with return phone calls if you call him."

    What a fair assessment of "harassment"
  • Newsflash! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:02PM (#11084433)
    Newsflash: Insane, opinionated crank on the internet. News at 11.

    This is not news. It's funny, his wikipediasucks site is distressing, for making fun of the guy's daughter, but this is not news.

    Nothing to see here, move along. My guess is that if this hadn't involved wikipedia, but instead one of the many, many other wikkis out there, this would never have been "news".
  • by Agrippa (111029) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:12PM (#11084581)
    from http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.sht ml [247news.net]

    "I sat in an office of AIS and saw three different people on one high speed connection post about Sollog. They were all called the same person and Sollog. Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia pro Sollog statements and they too were called Sollog."

    .agrippa.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...