On the other end of the spectrum, the single-syllabled "Weev" agreed to an e-mail-based interview with The Wall Street Journal. In the interview, he maintains that he was behind the incident -- although he clarified that it wasn't technically a hack.

"I was trying to prove that user-generated reputation systems are fallacious and subject to biased gaming by a small few," he's quoted as saying.

As for the discrepancies in the stories, "Weev" states that he "conducted a controlled experiment" and "saw results." As for Amazon's stance, he suggests the company may have its own motivations for covering up what he sees as the truth.

So what's the real truth here? At this point, any separation of fact from fiction involves some subjective and tricky judgment calls. Could the hack (or , if you prefer) have been feasible? It's hard to say. One blogger initially , though he has since revised his posting and shifted some parts of his stance. Others have questioned why the exploit "Weev" describes doesn't work anymore; he says the company removed the inappropriate content reporting function shortly after the issue became apparent.