Talk:Andrew Orlowski
From iA wiki
This entry sounds suspiciously more like opinion than fact and a little more like defamation than useful info. I'm not sure I trust this entry. Webfork
These are the top five or six results returned on Google when you do a search for his name ( ignoring the articles he himself has written). This is just to illustrate that even if it's a biased opinion, it's a widely held one.
Orlowski in moodswing shock... http://2lmc.org/spool/id/2663 " iSync, your smartphone's best friend
-->
iSync, devourer of data" "To be completely fair to the rabid idiot, we did have a vague moodswing from excitement to disappointment ourselves."
Andrew Orlowski is a lousy blogger.. http://www.guydickinson.com/sheep/archive/000718.html "Orlowski also complains about the poor quality of information found in most weblogs, but he's got blinders on when he's looking at his own columns and his home publication, since his own writing is full of fantasies and misstatements. It's sometimes claimed that one of the big differences between weblogs and "real" journalism is the absence of editors in weblogs. Well, if there's an editor going over Andy's work, she should think about another profession. For instance, a real journalist -- not a fantasist like Jayson Blair, or a third-rate pop-culture ranter/Dennis Miller wannabe like Orlowski -- wouldn't put quotation marks around an inflammatory statement by Professor Larry Lessig if Lessig had never made that statement. A real journalist wouldn't then go on to title and build his entire article around that misquote. Typical Orlowski straw man tactics."
Joi Ito http://joi.ito.com/archives/2003/04/04/more_on_andrew_orlowski_article_about_googlewashing.html "Kevin Marks has written a nice rebuttal to Andrew Orlowski's article about googlewashing."
Andrew Orlowski is a weblogger: http://plasticbag.org/archives/2003/05/andrew_orlowski_is_a_weblogger.shtml "In fact - rather than just declare Andrew a weblogger, I think we should go further. Andrew's writing style, hawkish vocabulary, obsession with his own interpretation of events and unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seem to me almost totally comparable a very specific subset of weblogging. It's terrifyingly similar to the rabid opinion-mongering seen in warblogging's least salubrious ghettoes (the subset of that noble faction that continually puts ideology before evidence and force of argument ahead of plausibility or logical debate). In fact, let me make this totally clear - not only is Andrew Orlowski a weblogger in all but name, he's also not a very good one..."
On Orlowski on weblogging http://www.pancakex.com/words/old/000006.html "I'm also kind of curious about The Register. (Well, that's a given.) Do they employ so many people that some of them have nothing better to do that seek out websites at random and point out their perceived flaws with them? Aren't there better things to be reporting about right now? What's the point of a journalist pointing out that most webloggers aren't as good a writer as they are?"
- I still have no idea why this topic even exists. It's not like there are any topics pertaining to The Register or badpress. The only reason I didn't question it's existance from the very start was that I thought that /he/ created it. Once I realised that wasn't the case, I continued to not care because.. well, I don't have much of an opinion since I don't know the topic.. it remains unlinked and not readable in the overall structure of the wiki, and this is a wiki.. I won't get in the way of opinion. ->
- At this point, my opionion (again, this being a wiki my opinion matters not) is that this topic isn't particularly relevant to anything else here. I would like to see it _become_ relevant, though. How about somebody post up a good-sized rant on journalism vs weblogs, reader opinion and the perception of the truth in and value of information and opinions on the internet? Cite, this and other, authors. Start up a page listing well-known internet authors. Link to the concept of reputation in the p2p world. -- rack
Rack: good call. -- Webfork
This topic's existance continues to be an overt mystery. Its current additions just take my lack of understanding to the next level. Webfork
- I don't get it either. This entry should get "This topic is Flamebait" added at least. The entry would make much more sense if it were linked from and to together with entries in the Wiki and sources -- for example like rack suggested. I'd like to read Orlowski's article(s) about Google btw. -- dpi
- I have a certain comfort level with very inexplicable things and therefore didn't add a preface. Since I don't have the inclination to check if the elements written are incorrect, I don't know that I have much to contribute beyond disbelief. However, Mr. Orlowski should take pleasure in the idea that someone cared enough to do all this work on his behalf, even if negative. I do all sorts of shit on the net that no one gives a rat's ass about.
- Along the same line, we need a rat's ass entry.
