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.

Comments

Re:Uh

[generic-man]

Let's say I walked into the library and marked up their encyclopedias with red ink (making legitimate corrections, in my opinion). Would you consider that credible?

Having a bunch of self-proclaimed "experts" write the encyclopedia (or the news, god forbid) is a commendable hobby. I just wouldn't believe a word of it until it passes through some kind of editorial review. "A bunch of people on the Internet think it's good" does not constitute an editorial review.

Wikipedia can be exploited for all sorts of reasons -- to make a political statement, to self-aggrandize, and to impart personal bias (whether intentionally or otherwise) in lightly-trafficked areas. This article explores just how successful one troll can be in disrupting the flow of things for a while -- and how the entire world can witness it.