Slashdot Mirror
Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia
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.
http://www.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:
Wanna slashdot his phone?feh. stuff.
http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ - check out the slant on his site, and you'll immediately have a good idea of his creditability...
feh. stuff.
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 out.
Well, you missed your chance put that on Wikipedia. The page has been locked, and just when the vandal-wars were getting interesting.
http://cyclocosm.com Pro cycling at its worst
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.
So all of this is self-inflicted. The harder he pushes, the harder the site pushed back. It's quite funny really.
Read the Wikipedia article as well as its history for a start.
Then what may interest you is that WikiPediA Sucks is run by himself (as said in article), but also that most of the proofs that is said against wikipedia comes from a single source, that is, Adoni Corporation.
you shall note too, that The E undergroud, which sells "SEX and DEATH video" (cited from the website), is also owned by the same company, as said here and here, with sollog.com proof here. 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).
Of Code And Men
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.
Wikipedia itself contains better criticisms of Wikipedia than this guy's pathetic efforts. E.g. Wikipedia Criticisms and Why Wikipedia is so great
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.
And the "exit" popup page when you leave his Wikipediasucks.org page advertises Princess Diana car crash pictures, beheading pictures, and Pr0n. Hmmm.
However, the Wikipedia article on Bomis, 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.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
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?
Like the old Usenet rule -- The first one to compare the other to a Nazi, automatically loses the argument.
And Son of Godwin: Terrorists.
You can't take the sky from me...
now with clickedyclick userfriendliness ->
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/022102/sl.howcol .shtml
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.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
See above reply wrt: Godwins Law
Chip H.