Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:04 PM
Sun Nov 15
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
06/30/09
06/29/09
The ultimate irony of this "feud" is that both writers are merely fronting for a software ghostwriter that runs on an IBM PC with 640K of memory.
06/29/09
With statistical modeling, the hypothesis, methodology, and interpretation should be guided by expert knowledge. Gladwell violates this principle repeatedly in his popular writings. To those who know something about the fields he attempts to engage, the "insights" he proffers are typically fatuous.
06/29/09
06/29/09
06/29/09
06/29/09
Hmmm.
06/29/09
06/29/09
1. Wired: Used to be cyberpunk (who remembers Mondo 2000?) and edgy and the second coming of the Whole Earth counter-culture. Now, it's flaccid, thin and gasping for breath in the last decade's "mainstream". Ironic.
2. The New Yorker: Pretentious bullshit, unveiled. NPR, New Yorker, Woody Allen flicks -- take this cultural boogeyman out back and shoot it dead. This nonsense-cultural-bias-masquerading-as-o... is wearing no clothes. Is it obvious enough yet for ya?
06/30/09
06/30/09
06/30/09
Not to mention most of Europe.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
Wikipedia on the other hand, has its own culture of extreme pedantry + social isolation + cultural ignorance that requires using "Crescent City(New Orleans)".
06/25/09
The editors insisted on inserting "Mobile, Alabama" and "Memphis, Tennessee." Cheesus crust.
06/25/09
The writing quality of most Wikipedia articles is terrible. They are not written by professional writers, nor edited by professional editors - and it really shows.
So if Anderson lifted text verbatim from Wikipedia - without even rewriting it to be halfway readable - the overall quality of the book's prose must be atrocious.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/24/09
we live in a copy and paste world and that's that.
06/23/09
Most people don't realise that it is becoming common practice for experts in given fields to contribute to their field's Wikipedia entry. Often its expected that PhD students contribute something. Yes, Wikipedia is open to everyone, but there are pretty strict editorial policies that the site has to deal with spamming and uncited sources.
When looking at an entry, use your brain. Does it have have an extensive reference list? Are these references solid? How is the writing style of the entry? These things will tell you about the quality of the entry. A well-written, well-researched Wikipedia article can be extremely useful to scholars. Of course, like any reference, they should not be relied on exclusively.
Anyone who thinks the Internet and wikis are the first media texts to undermine 'facts' and critical thinking are in for a shock.
06/24/09
Really? Does your source on this assertion happen to be...Wikipedia?
06/23/09
wait, what?
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
Of course, you could always cover your eyes and say that unless you read it in a book (which is, by definition, just written by anyone no matter what their qualifications) it isn't true.
06/23/09