Talk:Andrew Orlowski

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Eh? This has nothing to do with Andrew Orlowski. DannyWilde 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verity Stob says Andrew Orlowski is a Dalek 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attempts to circumvent AfD 

message: There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'.
-- nyenyec ☎ 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this was unavoidable. --Kizor 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His latest: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'" 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this article "NPOV"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I dissolved the Wikipedia section into whole article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. I left the two links in the "References" section. —Ashley Y 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of criticism of Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia the only target? 

message: Are there any third-party sources available for Orlowski? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party sources

message: Since this is an interspace link, do we want it? JoshuaZ 14:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wikignome? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Meaning of Power

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article says a lot about Wikipedia 

message: 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, Thomas Hawk, "Andrew Orlowski and The Register = Bad Journalism", blog post, November 3, 2005 in an article posted July 29, 2005. Andrew Orlowski, "Microsoft blogger: 'My toolbar vanished too!'", The Register, July 29, 2005 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed a paragraph. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I think you've missed the point 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Any more? 

message: 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.Andrew Orlowski, "search for Orlowski+climate", The Register His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the scientific community, for example his defence of Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society.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)
thread_title:  AGW section has BLP problems 

message: Orlowski has produced numerous articles that aim to cast doubt over anthropogenic climate change, or global warming.Andrew Orlowski, "search for Orlowski+climate", The Register His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the scientific community, for example his defence of Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society.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)
thread_title: Criticism of anthropogenic climate change

message: *Guardian, 16 August 2008: 
: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 was strongly criticized  as "what I would call a professional troll" by Guardian columnist Paul Carr (writer),  in his  18 February 2009 column.
*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)
thread_title:  RS's mentioning Orlowski 

message: 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)
replies: text: He isn't just a columnist, he's an executive editor. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence of The Register section 

message: 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:
:
Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This deletion dicussion, which resulted in keep, may contain useful gems of coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Improving sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with TheRegister.co.uk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Andrew Orlowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925064948/http://gawker.com/176679/geek-out-well-miss-you-orlowski to http://gawker.com/176679/geek-out-well-miss-you-orlowski
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified