Jump to content

Andrew Orlowski: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
DannyWilde (talk | contribs)
4,046 edits
m Changed "The Register" to "Orlowski"
DannyWilde (talk | contribs)
4,046 edits
m →‎Criticism of Wikipedia: Added Siegenthaler
Line 36: Line 36:
According to the results of Google searches{{ref|google_wiki-fiddler}}, Orlowski's term ''wiki-fiddler'' has not achieved widespread currency beyond its originator. However, it has been adopted in other ''The Register'' articles{{ref|wikipedia_growth}}.
According to the results of Google searches{{ref|google_wiki-fiddler}}, Orlowski's term ''wiki-fiddler'' has not achieved widespread currency beyond its originator. However, it has been adopted in other ''The Register'' articles{{ref|wikipedia_growth}}.


Orlowski has also commented on problems with self-edited biographies on Wikipedia{{ref|who_owns_bio}}. He contrasts the experiences of three people who tried to edit their own biographical articles, [[Daniel Brandt]], [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Cory Doctorow]], and demonstrates that Wikipedia is inconsistent in allowing or denying users the right to edit biographies of themselves. He quotes Daniel Brandt on the inconsistent application of the Wikipedia rules:
Orlowski has also commented on problems with self-edited biographies on Wikipedia{{ref|who_owns_bio}}. Beginning with the problems of the [[John Seigenthaler]] article, he goes on to contrast the experiences of three people who tried to edit their own biographical articles, [[Daniel Brandt]], [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Cory Doctorow]], and demonstrates that Wikipedia is inconsistent in allowing or denying users the right to edit biographies of themselves. He quotes Daniel Brandt on the inconsistent application of the Wikipedia rules:
:''All the rules are cancelled if they like you, and all the rules are enforced up the hilt if they hate you.''
:''All the rules are cancelled if they like you, and all the rules are enforced up the hilt if they hate you.''
and suggests
and suggests

Revision as of 15:06, 8 December 2005

Andrew Orlowski (born 1966 in Britain, currently based in San Francisco) has been an investigative journalist and columnist for The Register since 2000.

In 1992 he started an alternative newspaper in Manchester, England called "Badpress", and also wrote for Private Eye.

In April 2003, he coined the term Googlewashing to describe the potential for well-linked weblogs to obscure the original meaning of a controversial expression (e.g., "the Second Superpower")[1].

He later classified this[2] along with "absurd intellectual property claims" as an example of an unwarranted assumption of power or authority to gain sociological advantage on behalf of a particular lobby group. This factor is the core of what makes a story "great", he argues.

In December, 2004 he was invited to assemble a panel on techno-utopianism at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Orlowski argues that utopianism distracts attention and diverts capital away from solving real infrastructure problems[3] "Technology can help us," he writes on his FAQ page[4]. "But we venerate the machines we have, which aren't very good, and worse, limit ourselves to seeing the world through this machine metaphor. Technology is useful when it makes something we already like to do easier. Technology can't tell us something we don't know. Technology cannot solve problems that don't exist."

Criticism of Wikipedia

Orlowski has written several generally hostile articles about Wikipedia in the online IT newspaper The Register. In these articles, Orlowski called Wikipedia editors "wiki-fiddlers"[5], or "wiki wankers", and "pediaphiles", perhaps a pun on pedophiles. Supposed characteristics of a Wiki-Fiddler include

  1. making pointless edits, such as adding commas, merely in order to increase edit counts, and move up the "hierarchy" of Wikipedia,
    Although the project has no shortage of volunteers, most add nothing: busying themselves with edits that simply add or takeaway a comma. These are housekeeping tasks that build up credits for the participants, so they can rise higher in the organization.[6]
  2. having little expertise,
  3. driving out people with actual knowledge of a topic,
    We increasingly hear of experts who attempt to contribute to the project being repelled. If you're an expert, and you want to help Wikipedia, be prepared for months of fighting - usually with people who don't know what they're talking about.[7]
  4. adding irrelevant material to articles,
  5. being a
    small coterie of self-selecting wiki fiddlers[8],
  6. youth. Wiki-Fiddlers are described as being "children" and "spotty teenagers". Wikipedia is described as the "children's encyclopedia".

Wiki-fiddlers are also accused of misrepresenting subjects by populating articles with minor trivia rather than central facts. Orlowski points out, in particular, Wikipedia's entry on Buckminster Fuller and its focus on Eric Drexler:

For example, if you consult the world's most useless online text, the captive Wikipedia, you'll see Fuller's entry is a plug for Eric "AI" Drexler.[9]

The consensus building process of Wikipedia is also ridiculed. Orlowski describes Wikipedia in terms of "monkeys trying to type Shakespeare" and quotes a statement

a source whose organizing principle appears to be that twenty jackasses make an expert.[10]

To support his case, Orlowski also quotes from articles[11] by Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which McHenry describes the gradual degeneration of an article on Alexander Hamilton during a process of multiple edits:

In fact, the earlier versions of the article are better written overall, with fewer murky passages and sophomoric summaries. Contrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.

and by Nicholas G. Carr[12] in which Carr quotes from the Jane Fonda and Bill Gates pages of Wikipedia. The response of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is also described.[13]

Excellent article! Well balanced and thoughtful! Ok, well, entertaining anyway.

According to the results of Google searches[14], Orlowski's term wiki-fiddler has not achieved widespread currency beyond its originator. However, it has been adopted in other The Register articles[15].

Orlowski has also commented on problems with self-edited biographies on Wikipedia[16]. Beginning with the problems of the John Seigenthaler article, he goes on to contrast the experiences of three people who tried to edit their own biographical articles, Daniel Brandt, Jimmy Wales and Cory Doctorow, and demonstrates that Wikipedia is inconsistent in allowing or denying users the right to edit biographies of themselves. He quotes Daniel Brandt on the inconsistent application of the Wikipedia rules:

All the rules are cancelled if they like you, and all the rules are enforced up the hilt if they hate you.

and suggests

Trying to massage one's reputation out on the toxic wastelands of the web can go one of two ways. If the attempt is successful, it leaves you looking as foolish and vain as Doctorow. If unsuccessful, it guarantees an energy-sapping defeat.

External links

References/External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Orlowski&oldid=30596472"