Talk:Andrew Orlowski

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cleaning Up

I think this article needs to be cleaned up... very unprofessional in generall.. any ideas ?? easytiger 15:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added Cleanup Tag

After making passing references since Wikipedia was announced in 2001, Orlowski first criticized Wikipedia in The Register in mid-2004,[7] and what began as incidental mockery — often involving responses to reader's emails and characterised by his coinage of the neologism wiki-fiddler[8] — soon became a regular subject of his journalism. To Orlowski, Wikipedia is "a hobby, a multiplayer game and a repository for fan trivia"[9] with the accuracy of articles varying "from the occasionally passable to the frequently risible, while its all-important readability is even worse — and deteriorating."

Incidental mockery - confusing, words can be simplified

Wiki-fiddler - requires an entire section explaining why fiddler is used

"soon became a regular subject of his journalism" - relevance, notability, source, NPOV? Besides this, it unnecessarily expands what is already being written below and makes the article read more like it was written by someone who has an agenda.

By December 2005, several such articles were being published each week, with subject matter including the characterisation of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales as a petty hypocrite and pornographer[10] and average Wikipedians as rebellious children ("He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb."[11]), as well as a spoof article which announced that Wales had been shot.[12]

Notability?

Orlowski's comments indicate he believes Wikipedia is undergoverned (and thus of poor quality and morally hazardous[9]) and unnecessary (in that "expensive databases" of information will become publicly accessible in the near future — "The good stuff will just come out of a computer network"[11] — and well-capitalised enterprises will provide "much more attractive" alternatives[13]).

This reads like an attack piece.

What I see the main problem with this whole section is, rather than add and link many of the authors claims with criticisms of wikipedia, it goes on to take quotes out of context thus actually making the original articles it was based on more NPOV than this section.

I would edit it, unfortunately I just don't know how without removing the sources entirely. I suggest the editors go at this more on listing the wikipedia criticisms this person has written about, ignore the sensationalism and leave the readers to judge for themselves through the source and then insert the bits where the author differs his views more from the actual criticisms of wikipedia page without resorting to taking words out of context.

From how I'm reading this now, the quality isn't merely an NPOV issue. The whole section definitely misrepresents the person if read by a reader without verifying the sources and tries to paint a poorer image of said person and fails horribly at doing so that a reader would most likely come away wondering "what that was all about" --Trailing 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, NPOV

He roundly denounces techno-utopian in even its mildest forms.

- Makes no sense. Contributor possibly means "utopianism". But being "mildly utopian" makes as much sense as being "slightly dead".


Orlowski has been described as a "professional troll" by Jimmy Wales

- unsourced. Maybe Jimbo can say it now so we can include it ;-)

i've removed your self-serving edits. they constitute original research. sorry, but you can promote your blog in a million places - just not here. Anastrophe 07:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Orlowski can make specious arguments and have them reified here, but we can't rebut them even by linking? I'm not interested in promoting my blog, but can you clarify the basis on which his website is somehow privileged as a source? Would repeating the salient parts of the debunking here be OK? His original article was citing blogs and mailing lists after all Kevin Marks 11:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like my rebuttal was cited already in Second Superpower, which is the most detailed explanation Kevin Marks 11:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orlowski has been criticized and accused of unprofessional journalistic behavior. [1]

- previously removed for NPOV. "Hawk" is a psuedonymous blogger with an Orlowski obsession. Above added by User:200.2.128.2

Thank you for your input. The blog quoted has not been shown to be notable as a source. I would not dream of censoring this article (although I was accused of doing so) if there was genuine, notable criticism of Orlowski to be added. I removed the above comment since it is not worthy of inclusion. By the way, could you sign on talk pages? DannyWilde 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Stob says Andrew Orlowski is a Dalek

Probably not notable enough to put on the page proper, but this humorous article by Verity Stob purporting to be a conversation between a Dalek and Billie Piper between takes during the last series of Doctor Who includes this bit about what a Dalek does online:

And even when you do get on, what can you do? You read a bit of the Reg, Outpost Gallifrey, the Beeb, maybe log on to Wikipedia with username 'Andrew Orlowski' and post an article talking up the importance of the blogging movement. Just like everybody does.

Cute. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? This has nothing to do with Andrew Orlowski. DannyWilde 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right — it's saying that if Daleks were on the Internet they'd pull stupid trollish stunts. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to circumvent AfD

The AfD for Wikifiddler will determine whether the contents will stay under that title, whether they will be merged to a different article, or whether they will be deleted without merge. Your repeated copying of the entire article to Andrew Orlowski before the conclusion of that AfD is an attempt to circumvent the process, and the fact that you are doing so in bad faith, aware that what you do is wrong, is shown by your falsely flagging it each time as a "minor edit" (disputed edits are never minor edits, refusing to use an edit summary, and your failure to note on either talk page that you are copying the entire contents of one article verbatim into the other. Your chutzpah in describing it as "vandalism" when these bad-faith edits of yours are reverted is stupidity. Are you really so very in love with Orlowski that when he rants about Wikipedians who act badly you have to leap to fulfill his prophecy by exhibiting the worst behavior you can calculate? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say the same to you. You have been stupid enough to blank out and revert the article, even though I have extensively added to the material. Since Orlowski clearly is watching Wikipedia closely (see the material you blanked out, you moron) I hope he's watching this discussion and finding it as amusing as I do. Your repeated attempts to censor this material are laughable. --DannyWilde 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifiddler issue

Now that the article Wikifiddler has been deleted, I am unsure what to do with the material User:DannyWilde keeps inserting, i.e. a verbatim copy of Wikifiddler. I originally told him to stop doing that until the AfD is over, well now it is. Is there a Wikipedia Requests for trimming or something? — JIP | Talk 14:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the risk of sounding snarky, I'd see a problem deciding what to do with the material Wilde kept unilaterally merging, if there had been a consensus that the material should be merged, instead of deleted. Since the consensus was to delete it, I don't see a problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar

His latest: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'"

There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'.

-- nyenyec ☎ 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this was unavoidable. --Kizor 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article "NPOV"?

"generally hostile"? Are you sure? I just read the article, and while it didn't exactly paint Wikipedia in glowing terms it isn't what I'd consider outright hostile by any means. Sarcastic, definitely. (There's a difference.)

Why is Jimmy Wales' description of Andrew Orlowski as a "professional troll" notable? I happen to think Cindy Crawford is a moron but you won't find my quote on the subject there. (Hey, maybe I should go add it.) I strongly doubt Jimmy Wales is the best person to judge the situation.

Etc. I'm not a fan of Andrew Orlowski, but it would be a real stretch to call this article neutral. 12.103.251.203 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is out to get Wikipedia. Dunno what his problem is. The guy is very unobjective for a journalist. easytiger 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, he writes for an online British tabloid so objectivity and accuracy are strictly optional. An inflammatory article probably gets him a gold star and a pat on the back. Stoo 21:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i've replaced 'generally hostile' with 'critical', which is true, and neutral. wikipedia has some rather huge defects. merely pointing them out could i suppose be characterized as 'out to get' wikipedia. however, his criticisms strike me as extremely useful in pointing out that which wikipedians are often blind to. take the criticism, learn from it, and change. Anastrophe 18:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dissolved the Wikipedia section into whole article

Keep it that way. This format will control your rabid urge to defend Wikipedia in this article. KEEP IT THAT WAY. Lotsofissues 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orlowski's anti-Wikipedia articles

Every time Orlowski stamps out another "witty" diatribe against Wikipedia, do we need to link it here? Do we do this for any other human shitstaingadfly with a bug up his butt? No, we don't, and although some people might claim that because the target is Wikipedia we need to skew coverage in favor of the critics to prove we're not skewing it in favor of Wikipedia, I think that's clearly poppycock. Orlowski's latest "coup" can be summed up in one sentence: "I can vandalize Wikipedia and make it say false things." That's it. Not even "and despite Wikipedia's claims about how fast vandalism is corrected, my false claims stayed up for X hours." Orlowski apparently even felt the need to tell an outright lie:

"The news of the "shooting" even made the venerable London Times, yesterday. The Times noted that after the first Seigenthaler scandal broke, the now "deceased" Jimmy Wales had, as he has so often, promised to tighten up a few nuts and bolts in the "encyclopedia's" editorial processes."

Translation: "The London Times were not in any way fooled by my vandalistic edits which claimed there had been a shooting. However, doesn't it sound much better if I lie and say they were?" The Times article was in fact about how Wikipedia was being hit by waves of coordinated vandal attacks in the wake of the favorable comparison to Britannica. So all Orlowski has proved is that if he's allowed to cherry-pick his facts, he can wrap a meager quantity of them in a blanket of shit and call it an article. Do we need to link it every time he does so? No. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the quoted portion is known as 'satire'. since the article is about orlowski, and orlowski is a vocal (and articulate) critic of wikipedia, it's appropriate for each of his articles about wikipedia to be linked here. wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. your attitude towards orlowski is strongly POV, so it would probably be best if you simply not edit the article.Anastrophe 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stay away from this entry too. Your apologetic defense of Orlowski shows your disgust at Wikipedia. Everyone from here to slasdhot has figured out his hatchet tone, evoking murderous regimes for comparison, is not an attempt to "be critical", that is find faults and mend a risky problem, but the overwrought provocation of a hack writer trying to rouse his name into fame. Lotsofissues 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your opinion. orlowski is right on the money about most of what is disfunctional about wikipedia. if you can't detach yourself from WP enough to see that - then you're part of the problem. feel free to read my user page for more. Anastrophe 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Anastrophe? Please tell me where WP:NPOV states that editors must be free of any strong POVs towards an article's subject in order to edit it? That's right; it doesn't. "since the article is about orlowski, and orlowski is a vocal (and articulate) critic of wikipedia, it's appropriate for each of his articles about wikipedia to be linked here." Really? Then answer my question above: what other person do we do this for? Can you name a single one? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"hey Feldspar"! reread what i wrote. i never said editors *must* be free of any strong POV's towards an article's subject in order to edit it. don't put words in my mouth then attack me for them. i suggested that it would PROBABLY BE BEST if you not edit the article. as to your question you want an answer to, if the question had any relevance, i'd answer it. i was not aware that a precondition of any article on WP was that it 'be like' other articles. who cares if there are or are not other articles that this is done for? point me to a WP rule that says we can't. then we can talk. Anastrophe 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anastrophe, your suggestion to Antaeus Feldspar is unhelpful. Please assume good faith and bear in mind that "POV" vs "NPOV" applies to articles rather than people (since everyone has a point of view). —Ashley Y 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


please, spare me the sanctimony. let me quote feldspar: "Do we do this for any other human shitstaingadfly with a bug up his butt? ". one can presume good faith, but once it's broken, there's no point in assuming it any longer, quite clearly. Anastrophe 04:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, such an expression is not written from a neutral point of view and would have no place in the article itself. But I'm not sure what your complaint is? —Ashley Y 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you are playing rhetorical games. you said 'assume good faith'. i replied that that has long since expired. please reread what i wrote earlier. *i* have no complaint. feldspar apparently does. and apparently feels free to act in bad faith, and claim i've said things i have not, in order to further his argument. again. reread. it's all there. Anastrophe 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relieved to hear that you have no complaint, and I assume from that you have no objection to Antaeus Feldspar (or anyone else in particular) editing the article. —Ashley Y 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
assumption is unnecessary - again, reread. i'm baffled why that one sentence has been so utterly misconstrued. Anastrophe 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Anastrophe. Here's what you said: "your attitude towards orlowski is strongly POV, so it would probably be best if you simply not edit the article." Here's what I replied: "Please tell me where WP:NPOV states that editors must be free of any strong POVs towards an article's subject in order to edit it?" The only difference between those that I can see is where you said "probably" and I said "must". What was I supposed to say? Would my response have been okay if I had asked where WP:NPOV says "editors should be free of any strong POVs towards an article's subject"? Or is that, too, a proof of bad faith in your book? Perhaps I would have had to be even more precise in repeating your words back to you; perhaps I should have said "Please tell me where NPOV says 'If an editor's attitude towards the subject is strongly POV, it would probably be best if that editor simply does not edit the article'?" How about that?
Here's a hint. "Assume good faith" doesn't actually mean "leap to the conclusion that there was bad faith even when there is an equally plausible explanation that does not mean bad faith." If you see a huge difference between "it would probably be best if you did not edit the article, because you have a strong POV" and "you should not edit the article, because you have a strong POV", then feel free to explain that difference, and convince us there is one. But when you claim "Feldspar wrote as if there was no huge difference between the two! He must see the utterly huge difference that I see and he must have deliberately chosen to ignore that difference! I will accuse him of deliberate dishonesty because I have chosen to utterly rule out the possibility that he does not see the huge difference that I see!" then yes, you are violating WP:AGF. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i guess maybe there's a cognitive disconnect or comprehension problem here. here, let me help. you just said "The only difference between those that I can see is where you said "probably" and I said "must". ". oh really? okay, here you go: "your attitude towards orlowski is strongly POV, so it would must be best if you simply not edit the article." this is pathetic. of course there's a difference in meaning between "should not" and "probably would be best". there's an obvious difference in tone, meaning, and intent. are you familiar with what the term 'emphatic' means? and how it differs from a suggestion? Anastrophe 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, you do seem to have a cognitive disconnect here. Wikipedia is based on open discussion; that's not possible when one person says "Here, this is the way I choose to phrase it, and if you choose any other phrasing, I will loudly declare you guilty without trial of first-degree bad faith. I choose the framing of the debate; you are only allowed to say 'yes' or 'no'." This whole rigamarole is just a red herring, anyways; WP:NPOV contains no recommendations whatsoever that certain editors should be discouraged from editing pages because they have strong POVs. Not phrased as "it would possibly be best" or as "must". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


indeed, focus on the process, rather than accuracy. knock yourself out. speaking of red herrings, *I* never said i was stating policy, formal position, guideline, whatever. *I* made a suggestion, based on your use of the term "shitstain" in describing the subject of this article (i guess if you want open discussion, expressing your fulminating contempt for the subject matter is certainly "open"). what you do with the suggestion is entirely up to you. enjoy. do whatever you want. have fun. you've succeeded (additively, not alone) in hounding another editor from wikipedia. wikipedia is broken. it's a game, not an encyclopedia. Anastrophe 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of criticism of Wikipedia

Is Orlowski's criticism of Wikipedia a big part of his "salience", so to speak, or a small part? If it's a big part, we should have a separate section for it. If it's a small part, we don't need to reference every single article he's written on the matter.

My own opinion is that it's a small part: he's done a lot more besides write on Wikipedia that would qualify him for an article here. —Ashley Y 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's no objection, I'll go ahead and reduce the references to one or two... —Ashley Y 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I left the two links in the "References" section. —Ashley Y 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It´s hopeless. This article can´t be maintained. --Lotsofissues 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need to lose the fanboy (or anti-fanboy) edits. Everytime he criticises Wikipedia 100 people seem to write to the register. It's like we're a cult or something.. Secretlondon 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia the only target?

I don't think so. He targetted Rob Levin and others - see http://thomashawk.com/2005/07/andrew-orlowski-sloppy-journalist-or.html as well about his particular brand of sloppy journalism. Nice to know who we are dealing with here! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that Orlowski deliberately fabricated an email. What we have here is allegations of dishonest journalism! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources

Are there any third-party sources available for Orlowski? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikignome?

Since this is an interspace link, do we want it? JoshuaZ 14:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Authority

I've sent a few mails to Orlowski via The Register's webforms about the concept of fallacy. It seems to me that his problem with Wikipedia hinges on the lack of 'authority' of the contributors. To him, an encyclopedia must be authoritative. Even though argument from authority and appeal to authority are fallacies. The irony is palpable. He puts forth on the fallability of contributors, whilst being incapable of grasping philosophical aspects of truth. I can't deny it annoys me that he's employed as a journalist, but without wishing to sound bitter, ultimately his work isn't widely read, so what harm can he do?

Strong disagreement here. When estimating the probability of truth of a statement, reliance on an expert is completely valid, under the presumptions that the expert has access to more information and has thought about the subject more. Appeal to authority is not inherently falacious, it depends very much on who the authority is and the circumstances of the appeal. JoshuaZ 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be valid in a court of law (and indeed a widely used tactic), however courts aren't about truth they're about rule and government. Science uses peer review to ensure that it doesn't fall foul of fallacy. Because of the human condition people cannot be relied upon to speak the truth, or even remember facts correctly no matter how distinguished they are. My father swears blind that I recieved a scar on my top lip from a cracked dummy. But my mother insists that my tooth came through my lip. Both were present, both are authorities, both differ. Whilst I understand that courts believe argument from authority isn't a fallacy, I can't think of a single instance when witness testimony could be taken as fact with one eye on scientific process.
Lots of people on Wikipedia seem far too precious about this. While The Register is often not fair about Wikipedia, it has brought to light some very interesting disputes, such as the Mantanmoreland affair. OK, so maybe he doesn't like us; but we're adults, aren't we? Let's just suck up the criticism, report it as fairly as we can, and move on. cojoco (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Orlowski left The Register?

The photograph now on the article page is from a website carrying an article about a farewell party for Orlowski on May 26th. He has though had an article published on The Register today. Alan Pascoe 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He went back home to Britain... where The Register is located. He must have been writing articles through e-mail.
The photo I added is unflattering, maybe we should use the one linked at the bottom of the page instead. (I didn't notice it before) Ashibaka tock 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be better; I added that link, but didn't put the image on the page because I wasn't sure of the copyright status. Alan Pascoe 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sent an e-mail to the photographer, I will update with a better photo if I get his permission, or delete it and use that one if I don't. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We (El Reg readers) should be so lucky. --CRConrad (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Power

The article contained a link to the Power disambiguation page. Since that page consists of a list of possibly relevant articles (Power (sociology) or Economic power) as well as obviously irrelevant articles (such as Electric power) I judged that the link would only distract a reader, and changed from a link to an ordinary word. Gerry Ashton 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says a lot about Wikipedia

No slam on Andrew at all, but it seems doubtful that an article about AO would exist if he were not a vocal critic of Wikipedia.

It is also amazing that, in an article that is around 687 words long, around 284 of them (over a third) concern what AO has said about Wikipedia. Obviously, this is the only part of his work that is of interest to most Wikipedians, but that doesn't mean that it's suitable material for a Wikipedia article. Or is it? Perhaps it is, if the main consumers of Wikipedia articles are supposed to be Wikipedians themselves. But if not, then you might ask unbiased consumers of tech journalism, who are familiar with his work, on what topics he has done his best work--and then write about that. Maybe it's Wikipedia, but no doubt few people working on this article actually have the faintest clue.

I'd like to point out that the Citizendium will almost certainly have a policy against undue self-reference. Wikipedia of course has some language to that effect, but it doesn't enforce it. CZ will enforce its policy and will, thus, be a little less navel-gazing. --Larry Sanger 07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to write the same, but you've said it far more eloquently. Iain --147.114.226.172 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has a guideline along those lines: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But as I see it the only effect of editor influence from his Wikipedia-related activities in this case is to get an article written about Orlowski earlier than it otherwise would. We have plenty of other articles on journalists already and I hope Wikipedia eventually has articles on all of the prominent ones. It's useful for checking up on what a journalist's areas of expertise and biases are. Bryan 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia of course has some language to that effect, but it doesn't enforce it. CZ will enforce its policy and will, thus, be a little less navel-gazing. It will, hmmm? You guarantee that CZ will do everything right that Wikipedia's doing wrong, hmmm? You really don't think there's any possibility that CZ will, like Wikipedia and I daresay like most projects, have some principles that end up getting neglected in practice, hmmm? Free advice, Larry -- it's generally good advice not to count your chickens before they've hatched. That's especially good advice when you're tempted to say "They should be ashamed of the inferior quality of their chickens; just look at how superior our chickens are ... and by 'are', I mean 'will be, Real Soon Now.'" -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a paragraph.

I have removed the following bit:

On November 3, 2005, Orlowski was accused of having fabricated an email from Robert Scoble by blogger Thomas Hawk,[1] in an article posted July 29, 2005.[2] The article was a follow-up to another article in which Orlowski stated that some users noticed their Google and Yahoo! toolbars had vanished in Internet Explorer 7. When Scoble stated that he did not believe that he had seen this, Orlowski posted a follow-up article claiming that "a reader has stepped forward to volunteer this email. We've removed his name. It was sent yesterday evening Pacific Time, and this morning our source gave us permission to use it", and then published what he claims was an email that came from Scoble that stated that "Yup, trying to find out what's up on that one. It did it for me too. Wiped them out."
Both Hawk and Scoble dispute the veracity of the email, and have accused Orlowski of sloppy journalism.

This is because, I gather, blogs are not normally considered to be reliable sources. Ben Standeven 07:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see some problems with the way that section is referenced but also some problems with your stated reasons for removal. If Orlowski says "Scoble sent an e-mail that says 'blah blah blah'" then Scoble is automatically a reliable source for his own claim "no, I never sent any such e-mail." I don't know why we're using the Thomas Hawk blog instead of Scoble's own blog, since Hawk's posts seem to be coming four months or so after the party, but clearly Scoble's blog is a perfectly reliable source for his side of the story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems reasonable; reliability shouldn't be an issue for Scoble and Orlowski's own claims. But I don't like the idea of using someone else's blog as a source here. Ben Standeven 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the mention of AO's criticism of the Wikipedia as "undergoverned" should be tempered with some reference to the looseness of his own approach to journalism. For example, in http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/19/free_press_fail/page2.html he states as fact that "The Anarchist's Cookbook was created at the CIA". There's no citation for this, and a personal email exchange with him elicited nothing more than a repetition of the statement in various forms. We journalists all make mistakes, and sometimes shoot our mouths off, but a refusal to correct, retract or cite supporting evidence does suggest to me that AO sails under his own Bohemian flag, and his opinions of the Wikipedia (and much else) could perhaps be usefully viewed in this light. Bidmead (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the edits of a banned user

Removed the edits of a banned user. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point

While I agree that The Register has sometimes been a bit harsh on Wikipedia, the section in this article talking about P2P seem to have completely missed the point. The Register is has a somewhat satirical, cynical and irreverent style, but I can see no evidence in the references cited that A.O. is down on P2P filesharers. He pokes fun at them and calls them "freetards", but does this mean that he is against P2P? I don't think so! cojoco (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more?

Well interactions with Wikipedia is about the most important thing in this world, but haven't he done more than just criticised Wikipedia, if that was what he did. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read a couple of articles written by him at the Register, and think I can come up with an answer myself: no. His articles are normal, not in any way extraordinary, the Register assigns itself a culture of sarcastic sharp-toothedness, but he is well within the std dev limits for a journalist in such a paper, maybe lacking a little of the necessary technicality to make him really sharp. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGW section has BLP problems

I've moved this section here for discussion & repair. As it stands, it has obvious Original Research and/or Synthesis, both of which violate WP:BLP policy.

Criticism of anthropogenic climate change

Orlowski has produced numerous articles that aim to cast doubt over anthropogenic climate change, or global warming.[3] His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the scientific community, for example his defence of Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society.[4]

  1. ^ Thomas Hawk, "Andrew Orlowski and The Register = Bad Journalism", blog post, November 3, 2005
  2. ^ Andrew Orlowski, "Microsoft blogger: 'My toolbar vanished too!'", The Register, July 29, 2005
  3. ^ Andrew Orlowski, "search for Orlowski+climate", The Register
  4. ^ Andrew Orlowski, "American physicists warned not to debate global warming", The Register, July 21, 2008

Note that both statements are unsuported by thiird-party cites -- they appear to be the interpretations of the editor(s) who wrote this bit. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notability concern

Yes I can't find any reliable source mentioning any of this. (the AGW stuff above) In fact are there any secondary sites that discuss his stuff at all? Does he fail notability? The badpress article he quotes doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about whether Orlowski is notable. I did find this secondary reliable source [2] which mentions him. It's more than a passing reference to him, but, on the other hand, it's probably not enough by itself. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about him, it is about Wikipedia and quoting him. If there was enough of that I guess it would give notability despite not having anything specifically about him but I've found practically zilch except hundreds of things by the person himself in the Register of which he is the executive editor. He should mark all the stuff he sticks in as editorial but he doesn't. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Orlowski isn't the subject of the Asia Times article doesn't matter. The WP:SIGCOV section of the notability policy says that Wikipedia article's subject "need not be the main topic of the source material." -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't even significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Enough of that sort of stuff and I guess he'd get notability okay simply from being mentioned a number of times rather than anyone saying anything specifically about them but I haven't seen that. I was just looking at some article about an obscure Irish cheese up for deletion and I thought it satisfied the notability guidelines far better.
I never said that the Asia Times article was significant coverage. I said, "it's probably not enough by itself." -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask at WikiProject Journalism about this, do they have some special provision for notability in cases like this where there are hundreds of things on the web but they're practically all by the person himself? Dmcq (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have nominated for deletion as I can't find anything halfway reasonable. I'm a bit surprised but then I've read the Register for a while and I guess one doesn't realize how little interest anyone else takes of the stuff he writes. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS's mentioning Orlowski

Andrew Orlowski, executive editor of the technology website The Register, says: 'The web is a secular religion at the moment and politicians go to pray at events like the Google Zeitgeist conference. Any politician who wants to brand himself as a forward-looking person will get himself photographed with the Google boys.'
  • Orlowski made a presentation to the Innovation, Technology, and Spectrum Policy conference at George Mason University in 2006:
Information Economy Project
  • Orlowski wrote several articles (op-eds?) for the Guardian around 2006-2007, such as this one on Net Neutrality. We mention his Wikipedia Guardian piece already.

I'll add more as I find them -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of The Register section

The first sentence of The Register section says, "Orlowski became a columnist based in San Francisco, U.S. for The Register in 2000." There has been a citation needed tag on this sentence for a long time. I see two things in the sentence that might have been challenged: "based in San Francisco" and "in 2000." Many of Orlowski's columns state that he is "in San Francisco", so I'm fine with leaving that in without a citation. If someone wants a source, we can use one of Orlowski's columns.

However, I've been unable to find a reliable source for "in 2000." If no one else has a reliable source, I suggest we remove that phrase and change the verb: "Orlowski is a columnist based in San Francisco, U.S. for The Register." The citation needed tag could then be removed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't just a columnist, he's an executive editor. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This page from The Register could be used as a source for that. There's still the issue of the year, which now becomes two issues: what year did he become a columnist at The Register and what year did he become an executive editor there? Unless we have a reliable source for both, it would probably be best to not mention either. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into using one of Orlowski's columns as a source for "based in San Francisco". All the columns I looked at which say he is in San Francisco are from 2000 to 2006. Newer columns do not mention San Francisco and this page from The Register shows him being in London. It seems that he was in San Francisco at one time, but now has moved (back) to London. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving sourcing

I've tagged this article as relying on primary sources. It could be improved by including secondary sources that may indicate the actual significance of this living person's encyclopedically biographical accomplishments. Here are some links that might help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion dicussion, which resulted in keep, may contain useful gems of coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start by deleting all primary sourced material (with the exception of The Register sourcing for his role there), and retain only what is based on secondary sources. The second step should be to incorporate proper secondary sources, like the NYT piece mentioned in that deletion discussion (thanks for the link). JN466 18:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with TheRegister.co.uk

Looking at the page, I see nothing really 'notable' there, except a few talked about Tech-utopianism, and some wikipedia-trolling. His one potential claim to notability is "he coined the term googlewashing", a term very seldom used (and which links to google-bombing here) so isn't that notable either. Almost everything 'notable' about him is to do with his work at The Register so it should probably be merged there. 192.238.21.217 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Orlowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Orlowski"