![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can someone just check that over for any constructive criticism? Thanks Jenova20 ( talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I also need to add a link for troll in that section but it redirects to troll rather than "Troll_(Internet)" How do i change that? Thanks Jenova20 ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Licence is a noun. License is a verb. Please remember this when reverting other people's changes. — Wereon 18:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The simplest way to remember which is which out of "licence" and "license" is to remember they go the same way round as "device" and "devise". 82.6.101.217 ( talk) 13:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC) ---
Removed this as self-referential:
It reads like an editorial comment in the article, or material for a letter to the editor - David Gerard 22:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
It might be a good idea to add some info regarding what the controversy was over one of the founders leaving and founding The Inquirer. I don't know why he left, but maybe someone else does? The Belgain 02:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I object to the following sentence in the article - I am studying at Cambridge and know plenty of very intelligent people who cannot communicate, regardless of their state of mind: "Many of these letters are left un-edited leaving in misspellings, grammatical errors and errors in logic that often show that the Internet encourages intelligent people to get angry and make mistakes or allow stupid people to get angry and communicate." - Fergus (frf21 at cam/ac/uk) 02:39, 28 May 2006 (BST)
"Sadville" isn't "joking Daniel Sadville, a reporter that covers Second Life to CNET.". The CNET reporter's name is "Daniel Terdiman". "Sad" is used here in the British slang sense of "pathetic, socially inept, regrettable". Now that the Second Life hype has died down, the CNET bloke has been "withdrawn"; so maybe just remove this line? The original contributor either (a) didn't get the joke or (b) did, but hoped that no-one else would. 81.174.241.81 ( talk) 02:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a section devoted to the Register's repeated attacks [1] on Wikipedia? Nrbelex ( talk) 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Doing a little Original Research (i.e. noticing a trend and being too lazy to explore it), most or all of the more biased attacks seem to come from one Andrew Orlowski. [2] -- Raijinili 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The "tongue-in-cheek" about everything. By comparison wikipedia gets off lightly in my opinion. Anyway, it's not the "attack" you portray it as (and remember to walk the NPOV line!). It is irrelevant to wikipedia to list all it's criticisers and just makes wiki's community seem childish to point this fact out, especially when all other factions in IT take a similar "beating" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.137.82 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel the tabloid nature of The Register is being stressed enough. There is a huge gap between "news" and what the The Register is actualy doing. Sarcasm aside, news typically implies unbiased (or more than just lip service to the attempt at it) facts. Alot of what The Register is running, especially as of late, is not factual, but running (as in liquid, more specifically drool) commentary on factual headlines. The headline being the only statement of fact.
It has also begun bandwagoning FUD against rival media outlets (Wikipedia as case an point) en masse, with articles to follow thier own articles, which were already opinion pieces of little to no factual substance.
I am a long time reader of The Register, and only an occasional user of Wikipedia. But with recent attacks on Wikipedia, each becoming increasingly more ad hominem, to claim it to be a news orgainization is a case and point mar on Wikipedia's accuracy.
All newspapers have a point of view and opinion pieces. I don't think the people who are claiming that The Register (or The Inquirer) are tabloid journalism really know the market and style that tabloid newspapers aim for. It is certainly sarcastic and opinionated at time, but then so is The Spectator, and no-one is accusing that of being a tabloid style. -- 192.25.22.11 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Does everything have to be categorized in a neat box? Calling it a tabloid, rumour factory or blog are all rather subjective. Stick to the facts and no one gets hurt ;) Riscy 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that The Register has called itself a tabloid on at least one occasion ( here, at bottom of the page). WikiMarshall 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How can it be Tabloid? Tabloid is a size of paper. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.65.170 ( talk) 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Because 'tabloid' isn't *just* a size of paper? qv Tabloid#As_a_sensational.2C_gossip-filled_newspaper AKM ( talk) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Tabloid" Reg: either Inappropriate or Not in Good Faith
The term "Tabloid Journalism" originated in the UK with the Murdoch "tabloid-sized" sized newspapers (as opposed to the quality "broadsheet-sized" newspapers) in the 1970's. Tabloid is now a recognised term for gutter journalism or celebrity chasing rumour mongering as we know it in all Commonwealth countries. That type of tabloid is probably more accurately called defamation or disinformation for the public.
I believe in the US, Tabloid refers to a type of magazine (usually purchased in a supermarket) which carries inane articles about UFO abductions or other freak-type stories. That type of "tabloid" is never intended to taken seriously by the public.
I'm not sure if (the unknown wiki editor) has the cultural background to understand the correct use of the term in it's British context, but refering to the Register as "tabloid" is at best highly inappropriate and at worst not in good faith or malicious (in a 8th grade kind of way).
Satirical is certainly a better description for the Register, especially with regards to its articles on wikipedia, facebook or other web 2.0 sites. Afterall a community that takes itself too seriously ends up being a ripe target for satire ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.97.200 ( talk) 10:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"tech tabloid" was added during a surreptious edit 6 months ago. I'm reverting it back http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Register&oldid=139426087 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.97.200 ( talk) 11:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It is one. T.R. is celebrity drama- on the internet- without sex. It's a terrible resource even on purely technical issues. 125.239.192.44 ( talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look up the word tabloid on wiki, it suggests that the word has different connotations in the US than from the UK. This is a UK article, so there is something to be said for keeping in line with UK connotations of the word. But, by American standards, the Register is certainly a tabloid. It is not merely satire, like The Onion, but is a style of journalistic opinion in the same vein as the New York Post and The Daily Mirror. Calling it satirical is POV. But surely the Brits have a word for this type of journalism? We just call it tabloid. 72.78.13.96 ( talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC).
Its now outside the realms of journalism and into a propaganda, aka lying to push a agenda. 94.195.118.230 ( talk) 22:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that not just "Staff Members" call The Regsiter "El Reg", but so do many of their readers.
Notable, I would think? Given the recent storm, thought it best to discuss on talk page first. [3]
EJF ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. Via archive.org, I found this edition from June 1997. So it clearly wasn't August 1998... but even that June 1997 edition is numbered 50. The back-issue links at bottom right don't work; can anyone find anything on the web (as opposed to email) from even earlier? 86.132.140.45 ( talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody think it worth while to add a section on users responses to the redesign? Seems to be causing a bit of a stink, especially the change to fixed width and to comment icons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.166.232 ( talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have changes made on '10:34, 6 March 2009' been reverted for a second time? The first change is understandable, but the second was with reference and far more current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.122.33 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, March 8, 2009
Per WP:ITALICS, websites should not be italicized. Why is The Register italicized in the article? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
File:The Register r.png needs a fair use rationale specifically for this article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
El Reg has helpfully collected a few references here. This Wikipedia article needs to be corrected to describe the site as "An online lesbian magazine", per WP:V. Or maybe not, but the links may still be useful. AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 10:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There are very few decent sources. All of the mentions linked in the first comment via The Guardian etc. are en passant. I added as many books and other mentions, but there's just not much out there. I removed most of the primary sourcing and a lot of editorializing and asides. The BOFH thing seems like trivia to me, but I added a book that mentions the connection in passing. Jokestress ( talk) 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Somehow this has appeared (at the end of the article, past the ext. links) and I couldn't figure out how to clear it. Help? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can someone just check that over for any constructive criticism? Thanks Jenova20 ( talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I also need to add a link for troll in that section but it redirects to troll rather than "Troll_(Internet)" How do i change that? Thanks Jenova20 ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Licence is a noun. License is a verb. Please remember this when reverting other people's changes. — Wereon 18:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The simplest way to remember which is which out of "licence" and "license" is to remember they go the same way round as "device" and "devise". 82.6.101.217 ( talk) 13:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC) ---
Removed this as self-referential:
It reads like an editorial comment in the article, or material for a letter to the editor - David Gerard 22:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
It might be a good idea to add some info regarding what the controversy was over one of the founders leaving and founding The Inquirer. I don't know why he left, but maybe someone else does? The Belgain 02:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I object to the following sentence in the article - I am studying at Cambridge and know plenty of very intelligent people who cannot communicate, regardless of their state of mind: "Many of these letters are left un-edited leaving in misspellings, grammatical errors and errors in logic that often show that the Internet encourages intelligent people to get angry and make mistakes or allow stupid people to get angry and communicate." - Fergus (frf21 at cam/ac/uk) 02:39, 28 May 2006 (BST)
"Sadville" isn't "joking Daniel Sadville, a reporter that covers Second Life to CNET.". The CNET reporter's name is "Daniel Terdiman". "Sad" is used here in the British slang sense of "pathetic, socially inept, regrettable". Now that the Second Life hype has died down, the CNET bloke has been "withdrawn"; so maybe just remove this line? The original contributor either (a) didn't get the joke or (b) did, but hoped that no-one else would. 81.174.241.81 ( talk) 02:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a section devoted to the Register's repeated attacks [1] on Wikipedia? Nrbelex ( talk) 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Doing a little Original Research (i.e. noticing a trend and being too lazy to explore it), most or all of the more biased attacks seem to come from one Andrew Orlowski. [2] -- Raijinili 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The "tongue-in-cheek" about everything. By comparison wikipedia gets off lightly in my opinion. Anyway, it's not the "attack" you portray it as (and remember to walk the NPOV line!). It is irrelevant to wikipedia to list all it's criticisers and just makes wiki's community seem childish to point this fact out, especially when all other factions in IT take a similar "beating" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.137.82 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel the tabloid nature of The Register is being stressed enough. There is a huge gap between "news" and what the The Register is actualy doing. Sarcasm aside, news typically implies unbiased (or more than just lip service to the attempt at it) facts. Alot of what The Register is running, especially as of late, is not factual, but running (as in liquid, more specifically drool) commentary on factual headlines. The headline being the only statement of fact.
It has also begun bandwagoning FUD against rival media outlets (Wikipedia as case an point) en masse, with articles to follow thier own articles, which were already opinion pieces of little to no factual substance.
I am a long time reader of The Register, and only an occasional user of Wikipedia. But with recent attacks on Wikipedia, each becoming increasingly more ad hominem, to claim it to be a news orgainization is a case and point mar on Wikipedia's accuracy.
All newspapers have a point of view and opinion pieces. I don't think the people who are claiming that The Register (or The Inquirer) are tabloid journalism really know the market and style that tabloid newspapers aim for. It is certainly sarcastic and opinionated at time, but then so is The Spectator, and no-one is accusing that of being a tabloid style. -- 192.25.22.11 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Does everything have to be categorized in a neat box? Calling it a tabloid, rumour factory or blog are all rather subjective. Stick to the facts and no one gets hurt ;) Riscy 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that The Register has called itself a tabloid on at least one occasion ( here, at bottom of the page). WikiMarshall 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How can it be Tabloid? Tabloid is a size of paper. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.65.170 ( talk) 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Because 'tabloid' isn't *just* a size of paper? qv Tabloid#As_a_sensational.2C_gossip-filled_newspaper AKM ( talk) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Tabloid" Reg: either Inappropriate or Not in Good Faith
The term "Tabloid Journalism" originated in the UK with the Murdoch "tabloid-sized" sized newspapers (as opposed to the quality "broadsheet-sized" newspapers) in the 1970's. Tabloid is now a recognised term for gutter journalism or celebrity chasing rumour mongering as we know it in all Commonwealth countries. That type of tabloid is probably more accurately called defamation or disinformation for the public.
I believe in the US, Tabloid refers to a type of magazine (usually purchased in a supermarket) which carries inane articles about UFO abductions or other freak-type stories. That type of "tabloid" is never intended to taken seriously by the public.
I'm not sure if (the unknown wiki editor) has the cultural background to understand the correct use of the term in it's British context, but refering to the Register as "tabloid" is at best highly inappropriate and at worst not in good faith or malicious (in a 8th grade kind of way).
Satirical is certainly a better description for the Register, especially with regards to its articles on wikipedia, facebook or other web 2.0 sites. Afterall a community that takes itself too seriously ends up being a ripe target for satire ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.97.200 ( talk) 10:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"tech tabloid" was added during a surreptious edit 6 months ago. I'm reverting it back http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Register&oldid=139426087 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.97.200 ( talk) 11:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It is one. T.R. is celebrity drama- on the internet- without sex. It's a terrible resource even on purely technical issues. 125.239.192.44 ( talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look up the word tabloid on wiki, it suggests that the word has different connotations in the US than from the UK. This is a UK article, so there is something to be said for keeping in line with UK connotations of the word. But, by American standards, the Register is certainly a tabloid. It is not merely satire, like The Onion, but is a style of journalistic opinion in the same vein as the New York Post and The Daily Mirror. Calling it satirical is POV. But surely the Brits have a word for this type of journalism? We just call it tabloid. 72.78.13.96 ( talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC).
Its now outside the realms of journalism and into a propaganda, aka lying to push a agenda. 94.195.118.230 ( talk) 22:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that not just "Staff Members" call The Regsiter "El Reg", but so do many of their readers.
Notable, I would think? Given the recent storm, thought it best to discuss on talk page first. [3]
EJF ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. Via archive.org, I found this edition from June 1997. So it clearly wasn't August 1998... but even that June 1997 edition is numbered 50. The back-issue links at bottom right don't work; can anyone find anything on the web (as opposed to email) from even earlier? 86.132.140.45 ( talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody think it worth while to add a section on users responses to the redesign? Seems to be causing a bit of a stink, especially the change to fixed width and to comment icons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.166.232 ( talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have changes made on '10:34, 6 March 2009' been reverted for a second time? The first change is understandable, but the second was with reference and far more current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.122.33 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, March 8, 2009
Per WP:ITALICS, websites should not be italicized. Why is The Register italicized in the article? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
File:The Register r.png needs a fair use rationale specifically for this article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
El Reg has helpfully collected a few references here. This Wikipedia article needs to be corrected to describe the site as "An online lesbian magazine", per WP:V. Or maybe not, but the links may still be useful. AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 10:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There are very few decent sources. All of the mentions linked in the first comment via The Guardian etc. are en passant. I added as many books and other mentions, but there's just not much out there. I removed most of the primary sourcing and a lot of editorializing and asides. The BOFH thing seems like trivia to me, but I added a book that mentions the connection in passing. Jokestress ( talk) 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Somehow this has appeared (at the end of the article, past the ext. links) and I couldn't figure out how to clear it. Help? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)