Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sinbad Rises From Wikipedia Grave

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 110

A Chicago Sun-Times article passed to us by an anonymous reader pointed out the fact that the comedian Sinbad is still alive. This is notable, only insofar as Wikipedia thought otherwise. "Rumors began circulating last weekend regarding the posting, said Sinbad, who first got a telephone call from his daughter. The gossip quieted, but a few days later the 50-year-old entertainer said phone calls, text messages and e-mails started pouring in by the hundreds. 'Saturday I rose from the dead and then died again,' the Los Angeles-based entertainer said in a phone interview." Based on the article he seemed fairly okay with the mixup: 'It's gonna be more commonplace as the Internet opens up more and more. It's not that strange.' Wikipedia didn't comment for the Times piece, nor has it contacted the entertainer about the incident.

cancel ×

110 comments

Too bad... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18386961)

He couldn't think of anything funny to say about it.

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18391207)

He'd have to be funny for that to be able to happen...

However (5, Funny)

nuclearpenguins (907128) | more than 7 years ago | (#18386975)

His acting career is still in critical condition.

Really? (4, Funny)

soupforare (542403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387005)

Unfortunate that his career has been dead for a decade+

Re:Really? (1)

igaborf (69869) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387215)

Unfortunate that his career has been dead for a decade+

Yeah, and here [imdb.com] is where it died.

Wouldn't it be scary if... (2, Funny)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387023)

...they gave Sinbad another TV show? <scream>

Re:Wouldn't it be scary if... (1)

Psykechan (255694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387487)

This could never happen, right?

I mean the broadcasting industry has many safeguards preventing this from happening, right?

Re:Wouldn't it be scary if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387917)

Actually, I think I could deal with one new Sinbad TV show, but only if it was about how he was declared dead on Wikipedia and other wikiality events. Maybe he could be hanging out with the growing elephant population or something.

Re:Wouldn't it be scary if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18388533)

Jesus Christ, I'm tired of all this Candlejack shit on t

Re:Wouldn't it be scary if... (1)

milatchi (694575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18390877)

Gotta love that Freakazoid!

WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Times (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387033)

Since when is "some dipstick believed something they read on Wikipedia" news?

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

But non-stories like this make me wonder if the Chicago Sun-Times is one of those organizations.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (2, Insightful)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387069)

That's just a little too convoluted a bit of reasoning for me to believe. I'd be more inclined to think "It's a slow news day for the entertainment section, let's do something a bit controversial, and slam an online source in the process.... win-win for us"

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

h2g2bob (948006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388989)

The real question is not how it ended up in the newspaper, but how it ended up on Slashdot. We all understand Wikipedia and its strengths and limitations. This is not news.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (0, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387085)

I agree. I think that real journalists writing a story about (one of many) wrong Wikipedia articles is akin to Stephen Hawking writing a paper disproving Creationism. It should be obvious to anybody with a brain that these things are true (namely Wikipedia is often wrong, and Creationism is part of a particularly bad fairy tale). It seems odd that an organization with a good reputation would even bother acknowledging something as absurd as Wikipedia. The fact that the Sun-Times would even print this gives Wikipedia much more credibility than it deserves.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387559)

Aren't liberals cute. Ohh look at this tolerant one, DogDude. I bet you tell conservatives to be 'tolerant' of your faggots like John Edwards and Rosie O'Donnell, but when it comes to being 'tolerant' of the faith of the majority of Americans, they are "with[out] a brain."

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387615)

Drink bleach.

Yes, I know, I just fed the troll.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387655)

The fact that the majority of Americans believe in creationism is not incompatible with the assertion that creationists are without a brain. It merely confirms the already widely held belief that the majority of Americans are cretins.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (2, Insightful)

Afecks (899057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387773)

but when it comes to being 'tolerant' of the faith of the majority of Americans

"Let's don't become so tolerant than we tolerate intolerance." -Bill Maher

Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals are incompatible with civilized society.

It's also just plain silly.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18391737)

That would be fine if that were the case here. Slashdot (both as an entity and community) is simply anti-religion - anything faith-based is either shown in an unfavorable light (story selection by editors) or railed upon (by the community in comments). I think you'll find that religions are trashed equally across the board, and not just the "Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals".

A prime example. The grandparent post was modded offtopic. Yet your response has nothing to do with Sinbad or Wikipedia, yet it is +5 Insightful, even though it only addresses the topic contained in the offtopic post.

Dan East

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (2, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392167)

Hmmm, I disagree with Bill Maher here. We can and should tolerate intolerance. Intolerance doesn't in itself kill people. If someone is obeys the rule of law they should be tolerated even if they hold views that you find reprehensible.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388845)

Aren't liberals ...

I bet you tell ...

your faggots ...

You just made so many cocky assumptions about the parent (in a cock-like manner, I might add) that it makes me think I have to vomit.

Speaking seriously, you should probably avoid using generalizations like these in your conversations. It's unbecoming and people won't listen to what you have to say!

Not that what you have to say is at all interesting or relevant, but that's probably because of the generalizing and the cockery.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387103)

This whole thing is stupid. It was a promotional stunt and we all know that Sinbad knew about it from the beginning; probably did it directly, himself.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387727)

``But non-stories like this make me wonder if the Chicago Sun-Times is one of those organizations.''

Add to that their publishing of Robert Novak's drivel and it pretty much proves that to be the case. Besides, the Sun-Times hasn't been relevant since they let Royko go way back when.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387863)

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

Yet even they make the same mistakes, from time to time...

I think I'll just sit and wait and watch how this whole media situation develops... who knows what it'll all look like in 10 years' time...

Some of the stuff on Wikipedia is not true (3, Informative)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388005)

this story is proof of that.

Newspapers used to do the same thing for Abe Vigoda [abevigoda.com] announcing that he was dead too.

Sindbad the comedian ought to play Sindbad the sailor in an action adventure movie with some comedy in it.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18389505)

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.


Just a nit maybe, but I think you commingled a couple of organizations there that shouldn't be. I think we still need some organization(s) that focus on getting the news early (not necessarily first though) while at the same time getting the news right. I don't think Wikipedia has been known for getting stories early, nor do I think that is one of their stated goals, even if they have developed a bad track record for accuracy (and credentials checking) lately. The fact that Wikipedia can be compared at all with mainstream news services is a black eye for the latter not the former. Can a group of volunteers with little central authority get a story wrong once in a while? Yes. Can "proud" family owned institutions that have been around for a hundred years or so controlling billions of dollars of assets get it wrong with fair regularity too? Yes they can and have.

In the long run, if the mainstream media continues to show no better record of accuracy than things like Wikipedia (and throw in another few web-only publications that do originally sourced stories) they will fade into a well deserved oblivion. I think they can do better though if they (1) stop competing with one another for "first post", and (2) start doing a better job of separating their own political opinions from actual fact. That second issue has caused them on many occasions to follow one erroneous story with dozens of other erroneous stories propping up the first simply because they want the news to come out a certain way.

While we are at it, too bad there aren't two versions of the word "blog". Blog(1) would mean a series of articles, as you suggest, expressing someone's opinion, while blog(2) would refer to a style of web page that has a series of reverse chronological entries, usually created with the aid of some automated software input mechanism. There is of course no reason that all news couldn't be presented in the form of a blog, or series of blogs (on specific topic areas). Many MSM news organizations are moving to this with the blog entries appearing slightly ahead of the published equivalents. I don't think it's a bad way for them to be headed. Now if they could just collect the blog comments they get in order to refine the print stories (and let those wait another day to appear) the "final" printed news stories would probably be a whole lot more accurate (including typos and spelling errors).

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18391717)

Wow, this is the wrong story to be pretending like Wikipedia has equivalent reliability to a mainstream newspaper. Sure, newspapers have typos once in a while, but rarely do they report that a vibrant and healthy, if now somewhat obscure, celebrity has deceased.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18391805)

Uh, you haven't been paying attention. They do that all the time, and in some cases with even better known celebrities. I'm sure you could Google a few instances if you are really interested.

These are MINOR errors of course compared to actual IMPORTANT stories that the MSM have bungled. I'll just point out a few relatively recent ones that were "scandalous": (1) Jason Blair of the New York times who apparently wrote numerous "on the scene" interviews around the country without leaving his living room, and I guess pocketing the unspent expense money while he was at it. (2) The doctored Word documents that were claimed to be produced from a typewriter during the Vietnam war that ultimately caused Dan Rather to take early retirement. (3) More recently photos from from over in Iraq were found to have been seriously doctored by a "trusted" source, and another regular source of news was found to be not a reporter at all and who seemed to be "on the scene" at multiple stories at the same time. Again, we only see the tip of the iceberg, and errors that go way beyond typos appear in news articles every day that don't bubble up to the publics attention.

If you want first hand proof, just try watching C-span "gavel to gavel" coverage on some topic you are familiar with and then check to see what the newspaper or on-the-air reporting looks like. You might be surprised at just how much you are missing (and how much you are getting that isn't really there).

Major Media is not necessarily authoritative (1)

RallyDriver (49641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18390337)


They often fail to even check facts, and even when they do, the quality of their output is limited by the fact that journalsists are experts in writing, and not experts in the subject matter they write about, which they often don't really understand.

Re:WIki isn't news; neither is the Chicago Sun-Tim (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392205)

And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

Wikipedia occasionaly makes mistakes, but it's way above the bias and falsehoods that pervade the rubbish which the media output. There's simply no comparison. Hell, even many blogs do a lot better (presumably you agree, else you wouldn't be reading Slashdot).

Another victim of wikiality... (5, Funny)

TheRon6 (929989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387045)

Doesn't he understand how wikiality [wikipedia.org] works? He's dead when we say he's dead!

Re:Another victim of wikiality... (3, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387111)

It's like a twist on the old joke...

"Jimbo Jimbo Jimbo omg the Wikipedia article says Sinbad's dead!!! What do we do what do we do?????"
"Calm down, calm down. Just follow Wikipedia procedure. First, is Sinbad dead?"
*long pause* "Okay, done. Now what?"

Correction (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387181)

Line 2: "First, make sure he's dead."

Re:Another victim of wikiality... (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388991)

That would be Original Research.

Re:Another victim of wikiality... (0, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392997)

There is nothing worse than seeing a good joke butchered :-(

Shame on you sir, shame on you.

Re:Another victim of wikiality... (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18391277)

You know what, I read that the number of Sinbads has trippled in the last year!

Re:Another victim of wikiality... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392197)

He's dead when we say he's dead!

Nah, just when I say he's dead - I have a PhD in Sinbad Biography.

Truly an American Icon (1)

freeweed (309734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387055)

How come Slashdot death rumors don't make the news? :(

Re:Truly an American Icon (1)

Butisol (994224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387091)

Slashdot doesn't make its own news. It's just a bunch of basement boys commenting on other news stories about computer chips and cyborg cats.

Re:Truly an American Icon (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387879)

What, you're so keen on death of BSD announced in every newspaper?

Re:Truly an American Icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18388553)

because Netcraft didn't confirm it

sounds like bad thriller genre fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387079)

A man finds he no longer has an identity because he's been certified dead.

in related news - Fark declares Ace Frehley dead (1)

holden caufield (111364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387095)

Goodbye, Spaceman.

Unless it's possible that news isn't true either.

Re:in related news - Fark declares Ace Frehley dea (1)

EugeneK (50783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387523)

It must be true - I heard it on talk radio (although there weren't any more details).

How many times is the media going to do this? (4, Interesting)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387147)

How many "kid defaces wikipedia, media reports wikipedia is wrong" cases are we going to see? Haven't people figured out by now that Wikipedia is edited by the public, and might occasionally be vandalized or show inaccurate information? Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?

If anything, this just encourages more kiddies to go do the same thing to more visible entries. "What can we make up about President Bush? Maybe we can get it on CNN like Bobbie did last week!"

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387217)

This one is really amazing - it is a non-story - the vandal edits lasted for around 3 hours before being reverted. After that a vandal war ensued but the bigger the war gets the more heavyweight reverters weigh in and keep the article correct.

Honestly if a vandal edit existing for 3 hours is "news" then I would suggest the journos from the CST go and find something news worthy to report rather than producing a non-story.

Things on the internet may be false? YOU DON'T SAY (4, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387311)

This is dumb. The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news. Wikipedia is no more a reliable source than the rest of the internet and for some reason traditional media just don't get this. Traditional media don't understand the internet and try to apply their rules against it. There's much more information available than traditional sources, but you must be much more vigilant in confirming that information is true.

And knowing all that, wikipedia is still a damn good source. So what if vandalism occurs. They are doing a pretty good job at controlling it. All these people who bitch and whine that wikipedia might not be true obviously don't use it on a regular basis. There's more information on wikipedia than most libraries and the info is a hell of a lot more updated. I'd go as far as to say wikipedia has the most (and most accurate for its volume) information in one single source than any other site on the internet. Complain if you want, but once you find me a source with better, more up to date, free, and accurate information as wikipedia, let me know. Until then I'll support them with my money.

At least wikipedia has peer review processes in place. If a piece of information is wrong in a traditional source, good luck getting it changed. It could take years for it to be changed and up to the sole discretion of one source.

Re:Things on the internet may be false? YOU DON'T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18391777)

The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news. Wikipedia is no more a reliable source than the rest of the internet and for some reason traditional media just don't get this.


Wikipedia is not equivalent to "things on the internet". Wikipedia, being anonymously edited, has no authority on any subject and must give you a reliable external source for any piece of information in its articles so that you can double check it with something that DOES have authority. Of course most of the time Wikipedia articles don't list any sources which makes them next to useless.

However there are COUNTLESS internet based publications that have strong authority on a given topic, due to the fact that they have built up a reputation and stand to lose it if they get something wrong. They can't fall back on "Sorry, we're a freely editable encyclopedia, you should have known that was a vandalized entry!" like Wikipedia can.

And knowing all that, wikipedia is still a damn good source. So what if vandalism occurs. They are doing a pretty good job at controlling it. All these people who bitch and whine that wikipedia might not be true obviously don't use it on a regular basis. There's more information on wikipedia than most libraries and the info is a hell of a lot more updated. I'd go as far as to say wikipedia has the most (and most accurate for its volume) information in one single source than any other site on the internet. Complain if you want, but once you find me a source with better, more up to date, free, and accurate information as wikipedia, let me know. Until then I'll support them with my money.


Sometimes Wikipedia errors are as flagrant and obvious as Sinbad not actually being dead. Most of the time they aren't. I wonder how many times you have been misinformed due to your faith in the Wikipedia editing process? Wikipedia's editors are great for removing profanity from entries and other obnoxious vandalism, but nobody spends much time going over the actual content.

At least wikipedia has peer review processes in place. If a piece of information is wrong in a traditional source, good luck getting it changed. It could take years for it to be changed and up to the sole discretion of one source.


Good luck knowing whether or not a given piece of information you are reading and relying on ought to be changed. Most of the time when you read articles it's because you aren't knowledgable and want to be informed, and you probably won't be able to tell whether it's right or wrong unless you double check it.

Re:Things on the internet may be false? YOU DON'T (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392241)

Wikipedia, being anonymously edited, has no authority on any subject and must give you a reliable external source for any piece of information in its articles so that you can double check it with something that DOES have authority. Of course most of the time Wikipedia articles don't list any sources which makes them next to useless.

So Wikipedia has no authority, and is no good because it often but not always gives its sources - but every other source on the Internet, including the media, who spout bias rubbish or sometimes outright falsehoods, and never give their sources, that's okay?

The only difference here is that Wikipedia has its history available so that people can nitpick over any short term vandalism that appeared. No one seems to complain about the false information permanently displayed in tabloid articles.

Re:Things on the internet may be false? YOU DON'T (1)

Ontology42 (964454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392493)

Well, print media has been doing the same thing for decades, it's called propaganda.

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (3, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387381)

I think the reason the media keeps reporting these things is they are trying their best to show the world internet sources may not be true; and wikipedia is their poster boy. There was a frontline special recently documenting traditional media and what's happened to it in the past few years. I think many in the traditional media are still trying to fight and discredit the internet as much as possible. They think it's a fad and people will return to traditional media. They don't understand that the internet is just as much a fundamental shift as the Gutenberg press. They need to embrace it correctly rather than fight it. I have yet to see a traditional outlet of information fully use the internet in the same way wikipedia has. Wikipedia has become the NY Times of the internet, while other media outlets have a bunch of homer simpson sites they use to throw their print stories on the web.

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392139)

I get the same impression every time the Washington Post does a "Ha ha, look at what these silly bloggers are saying now" story.

Exactly (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387393)

Where's the huge story every time they have to post a retraction in the media? It's not like Wikipedia's the only place that has errors anyway. Sometimes publications run false information and never correct it, sometimes they put spin on it, sometimes it's biased.

Tinfoil hat: Big media also has a vested interest in trying to discredit Wikipedia, because they have to make their own information seem real and be taken seriously even when it's not. If they discredit Wikipedia, it's harder for Joe Six to find some alternative viewpoints from big media that people put a lot of stake in. Also, those who lobby cannot bend Wikipedia with money, but big media will always cave in. Nobody but the people really stands to gain from Wikipedia, right?

Wikipedia entry for fastolfe says dipshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387509)

And it's 100% right!

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (0)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388095)

Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?

It happens because Jimmy Wales and his Wikipedians keep insisting, in the most strenous and shrill tones possible for human vocal cords, that Wikipedia is accurate, authoritative and truthful.

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (1)

Carbonite (183181) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388427)

Who has claimed that Wikipedia is accurate, authoritative and truthful? Can you provide links to these claims being made?

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18389307)

Even better, what if the news outlets decide that this is an easy way to get ratings, reporting on inaccuracies in Wikipedia? Pretty soon they'll just skip to making volatile changes themselves, and be the first to report them. End Wikipedia.

Re:How many times is the media going to do this? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392755)

because it's FUNNY.

The big deal here isn't that Wikipedia reported Sinbad died, it's that people got interested in the fact that wikipedia reported he died.

It's exactly like the Obama/Madrassas deal. Except funny. Also, not about fundamentalist islam.

Sinbad faked his own Wiki death! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387169)

Seriously, does anyone else care enough to do it? It's a publicity stunt.

Re:Sinbad faked his own Wiki death! (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387333)

Shhh! Don't give Stephen Colbert [cbsnews.com] any ideas!!!!!! /In other news, Abe Vigoda's [abevigoda.com] still kickin'!

An old slashdot meme.. (4, Funny)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387221)

Sinbad was found dead in his home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:An old slashdot meme.. (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388611)

Thanks, I haven't heard that one in YEARS :)

Publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387273)

Publicity Stunt...

We'll find out tomorrow that the IP that changed the article is somewhere in the vicinity of... SINBAD'S HOUSE! Dun dun dun.

This guy's career has been dead for quite a while. Maybe he got bored... I mean - what famous celebrity hasn't edited their wikipedia page?

If only . . . (2, Insightful)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387317)

. . . news about Richard Jeni's death could have turned out to be fake. Now there's a comedian that will be missed! RIP Richard Jeni!

Re:If only . . . (1)

Bob of Dole (453013) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388945)

I actually found out about that through wikipedia (checking on one of my edits) :(

Re:If only . . . (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18391645)

Holy crap, I didn't even know. What a bummer. I *loved* Platypus Man and just re-watched Big Steaming Pile a couple weeks ago. Well, I guess he can hang out with Kinison & Hicks now. Bye bye, Richard. Thanks for all the laughs.

500 edits on March 15th? (1)

deadsmith (723365) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387325)

The wiki page had about 500 edits on the 15th. Good grief, people have nothing to do.

thanks again slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387339)

thanks for again bringing us yesterday's news as today's headlines.

He's a terrible comedian (1)

lewp (95638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387345)

Sinbad isn't funny... at all, but he was a pretty good sport about this. You'd think, "Hey, why shouldn't he be? It's kind of funny, and he's a comedian," but given previous people's reactions to Wikipedia innacuracies, I'd say this is deserving of at least a nod.

Cheers to you Sinbad. You still suck, but you have my respect.

Re:He's a terrible comedian (1)

British (51765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387391)

Cheers to you Sinbad. You still suck, but you have my respect.

Let me guess, you lost out to him in Star Search?

Re:He's a terrible comedian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387531)

Well, it's a good thing he still has your respect... because in this life, if you can't get the respect of greasy nerds posting on /. on the weekend, then you have nothing.

No one gives a shit about your opinions on comedy or character. You may as well be talking into your shoe. You're irrelevant.

-sinbad

Re:He's a terrible comedian (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387581)

[blockquote] Cheers to you Sinbad. You still suck, but you have my respect. [/blockquote]

Am I the only one who reads this, and in my head I hear it being said in the voice of Stewie Griffin? I think he said, "Men be turnin' into zombies in the grocery stores... that's funny"

Batman touched my junk liberally. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387355)

Batman touched my junk liberally. He strapped me in to his batmobile and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me. He was performing many red flag touches. I couldn't believe what the fuck was going on. I told batman the city would not approve of a millionaire touching an underage kid for free.

Can you believe it? Batman did all this. He picked me up off the street, strapped my arms and legs down in the batmobile's passenger seat, and just wouldn't stop fondling my cock'n'balls.

They definately were red flag touches. The goddamn referee he had in the back seat kept on raising up this red flag every time he touched my junk but did batman care? NO WAY! He just kept on doing it. I couldn't believe what the fuck was going on, indeed. I pleaded with Mr. Wayne but to no avail. I told him the city would not approve of such a wealthy man touching an underage kid like me (at the time I was 13) without at least compensating me for the trauma and the use of my body as his own personal plaything.

This got to him, worrying about his image. He continued to fondle me, all the while ignoring the referee's red flags. Then he drove the batmobile to my house and *ejected the seat I was in*! It was amazing. But surprisingly, after I woke up the next morning, my bank account had $150k in it! Can you believe it?

Obligatory Mark Twain Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387365)

Rumors of Sinbad's death have been greatly exaggerated.
*waits for storm of memes to follow*

AfD (1)

Scorchmon (305172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387413)

I'm nominating his article for deletion for lack of notability. Sinbad hasn't been notable since the early 90s, and if he refuses to stay dead, then we need to kill off his wiki entry as some satisfaction for all the pain he's caused us. I mean, have you seen Houseguest?

To resolve this issue, we need only ask: (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387427)

Does Netcraft confirm it?

Bah... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387445)

Another "problem" attributed to Wikipedia, when the actual problem lies in the dumb masses interpreting Wikipedia as some sort of peer reviewed encyclopedia...

That proves.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387449)

That wikipedia and 'open content' is completely wrong about everything. Open source is something that should be restricted only to certain software, and that's it. Trying to 'open source' anything that is not software yields to catastrofe.
Somebody should shut wikipedia once and for all and let it RIP.
Jimbo Whales is a pornographer, what did you expect, for gods sake!!

Sinbad isn't dead.......... (1)

British (51765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387465)

Stephen King and Marlon Wayans, who did not recently die in a car crash, told me so!

More to come (1)

up2ng (110551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387471)

I think that more people (fallen stars) will try to use this as a way to get their name out and circulating again !
I don't doubt it for a second that P.R. firms find this a surefire way to get someone in the news.

It worked wonders for Mikey (Life Cereal)

Thanks Slashdot (1)

alexjohnc3 (915701) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387477)

Now I know someone vandalized a page on a website that anyone can edit... and the page was protected to stop more vandalism! No. Freaking. Way.

Blame b3ta, apparently (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387553)

I don't know how accurate this is, but I've heard that there's an ongoing group prank on b3ta involving obiturising Wikipedia articles. Anyone familiar with the site know?

This is news to them!? (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387557)

Great, someone vandalizes Wikipedia, Rick Romero will give us news at 11.

So just how long until Slashdot troll postings make the news!? Seriously, I dread the day they start reporting things like "Are YOUR children in danger? Malicious internet 'trolls' may be posting links to goatse! We'll tell you how to protect your children via the SCO chairman's new Clean Port 80 anti-porn act... after a word from our sponsor, KY Inc."

Schrodingers wiki (3, Funny)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387629)

Maybe we all live in a kind of non-determinate universe, where we can only discover our current state of existence by reading wikipedia ...

Oh bugger, I'm not mentioned on WP AT ALL ! &7ds9Ddsa9
<No Carrier>

Abe Vigoda (1)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387795)

Maybe Sinbad needs a website like this one for Abe Vigoda.

http://www.abevigoda.com/ [abevigoda.com]

Re:Abe Vigoda (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18389585)

No way! I thought that was funny 20 years ago but Abe Vigoda can't possibly still be alive NOW?!?

Wikipedia contacting its pwned subject matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18387865)

"...Wikipedia didn't comment for the Times piece, nor has it contacted the entertainer about the incident. "
Silly author...
On the other hand: If (When?!!) Wikipedia contacts ANYONE we should all be very affraid!!!

Sinbad Is a Techie (2, Interesting)

SkyDude (919251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18387961)

This goes to show why Wikipedia should never be trusted as the only source for information.

Sinbad made an appearance on Leo LaPorte's "Screen Savers" program on ZDTV back around 1999 or 2000. ZDTV was the predecessor to TechTV a/k/a G4. During the interview, Sinbad mentioned he had a T1 line in his house in LA. Leo, who at that point was just getting comfortable with DSL, was green with envy, as were most tech junkies on the set.

So, while his career may not be at its zenith, I learned from that interview that he is a closeted geek and really enjoys tech stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if he reads /. from time to time.

Re:Sinbad Is a Techie (2, Interesting)

cawaker (262993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18389655)

Sinbad is indeed a techie, I've seen him numerous times at Macworld over the years.

Excuse me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18388019)

but wtf are you all talking about? Who/what the hell is Sinbad?

Sinbad isn't dead... (1)

lukateake (619282) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388179)

... but his career is.

Wiki Accuracy (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388287)

I've seen his act, the Wiki entry reporting his death was way overdue.

Is Joan Crawford Next? (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388649)

Blue Öyster Cult wrote a song called Joan Crawford [blueoystercult.com] with the wonderful refrain "Joan Crawford has risen from the grave." And after Joan Wikipedia can resurrect Richard Nixon.

I think someone should correct the mistake (1)

Diamonddavej (851495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388861)

And leave the wiki article as is...

... Wikipedia thought otherwise. (2, Funny)

fabioaquotte (902367) | more than 7 years ago | (#18388913)

... Wikipedia thought otherwise.
Stop anthropomorphising Wikipedia. It doesn't like it.

he arose!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18388925)

up from the grave he arose
with a might triumph over his foes
he arose a victor from the dark domain...

anyways hessss baaaaaaccccckkkk...

non-news (1)

Wickethewok (1061136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18390863)

Wow, so every time a Wikipedia article is vandalized we need a newspaper article and slashdot post about it? This is such non-news...

Good thing there's a wikipedia article for this (1)

dysk (621566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18391159)

I guess someone will have to add him to the List of Premature obituaries [wikipedia.org]

In other news... (1)

neminem (561346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18392133)

In other, more important news, Jeph Jacques also isn't dead yet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeph_Jacques)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...