Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia

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.

Say "Goodbye, Sollog"

[kmmatthews]

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 ([e-mail])
+1.3863165425
Fax: [phone]
4613 University Dr Number 311
Coral Springs, ST 33067
US

Wanna slashdot his phone?

Don't trust his site?...

[kmmatthews]

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:Here's the goods

[alexburke]

I know, replying to your own post is bad form, but I just couldn't help it.

For more information from Sollog's point of view, check this [sollog.com] out.

You missed your chance

[cosmo_the_third]

Well, you missed your chance put that on Wikipedia. The page has been locked, and just when the vandal-wars were getting interesting.

Re:Sollog?

[sangreal66]

That wasn't Sollog, it was one of his followers. Sollog claimed Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping was an act of terrorism and that she would turn up dead. I wouldn't put too much weight in his predictions.

Re:Say "Goodbye, Sollog"

[blogtim]

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]

Re:Sollog?

[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 facts and still maintaining a neutral POV. But even a neutral article shows what a complete arsehole he is. Every time he tries to deface it, it gets reverted in minutes.

So all of this is self-inflicted. The harder he pushes, the harder the site pushed back. It's quite funny really.

Re:Sollog?

[Poltras]

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:Say "Goodbye, Sollog"

[l4m3z0r]

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.

Re:Uh

[user9918277462]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Browse through the featured articles and you will be hard-pressed to find anything worse than that which appears in commercial encyclopedias. In fact, most of it will be vastly better and more up to date.

Experts are part of the public too. I suggest you edit an article that deals with a subject you are expert in, that's what Wikipedians do.

Re:Wikipediasucks.com

[gronofer]

Wikipedia itself contains better criticisms of Wikipedia than this guy's pathetic efforts. E.g. Wikipedia Criticisms [wikipedia.org] and Why Wikipedia is so great [wikipedia.org]

WRT the usefulness of psychics

[Adam Heine]

Theoretically, the usefulness of a psychic is determined by what one can do to prepare for an event, that one knows is coming, based on the psychic's prediction. But if I have to do vector calculus and word jumbles to figure out what a prophecy might mean (and even after doing that, it could mean a number of things) what good is that to me? I'll take my chances with blind fate, it's statistically about as predictive as what Sollog seems to be doing.

The Wikipedia article currently mentions a Sollog follower who said "something" would happen "tomorrow" - supposedly referencing 9/11. Even if his prediction *did* mean 9/11 was coming, if I read that post on 8/31 what good would it do me? Even if I assume "something" means "something big", how do I use such a vague prediction for my benefit? If a prediction cannot benefit those who hear it, what's the purpose of making the prediction at all?

The answer I'm dancing around is that I think Sollog is just in it for his own ego and publicity. If that's true, then this whole Wikipedia mess is actually benefitting him by giving him *more* publicity. The answer here is to probably just ignore him completely.

Re:Wikipediasucks.com

[dcigary]

And the "exit" popup page when you leave his Wikipediasucks.org page advertises Princess Diana car crash pictures, beheading pictures, and Pr0n. Hmmm.

Not much porn.

[abb3w]

The Wired article [wired.com] mentions that Wales searched Google for "Liv Tyler Nude". Of course, that standard would make an awful lot of teenage boys "pornagraphers", too.

However, the Wikipedia article on Bomis [wikipedia.org], Wales' company, mentions that they also sell "erotic images" over the internet. Several non-WorkSafe links off the article to computers off Bomis.com are persuasive evidence.

Re:Uh

[kevin lyda]

um, that is done to libraries. gluing pages together, cutting them out, destroying books and stealing them. that's done to libraries around america to censor views and ideas people disagree with.

Re:He's can predict the future?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see a nick called LORDGODALMIGHTY created today with 9 posts all saying how great Sollog is. Guess it doesn't take much to guess who you are. Welcome to the discussion Mr. Ennis. How about actually contributing something valuable?

Godwin

[Scrameustache]

Like the old Usenet rule -- The first one to compare the other to a Nazi, automatically loses the argument.

And Son of Godwin: Terrorists.

link here

[Anonymous Coward]

now with clickedyclick userfriendliness ->

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/022102/sl.howcol .shtml [citypaper.net]

Re:Wikipediasucks.com

[DunbarTheInept]

That was never a usenet rule. The rule was that every argument will eventually devolve into an argument about mentioning Hitler or Nazis. It said nothing about who has won or lost at that point.

Re:Wikipediasucks.com

[chiph]

See above reply wrt: Godwins Law [jargon.net]

Chip H.