Talk:Nicholas G. Carr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Law Of The Wiki merge[edit]

The reason for the merger is because of the Law Of The Wiki article is an orphan article. There is no way to access the article without typing the words: "Law Of The Wiki" on the search form or clicking the "What links here" link on Nicholas Carr's article. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just a copy of the statement on his blog, and since it was an orphan anyway there's no reason to keep it. --Michael Snow 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BAN NICHOLAS CARR[edit]

THIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ON WIKIPEDIA. SEE Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension.

Cool it. That's not a policy, and Nicholas Carr doesn't edit Wikipedia so far as we know anyway. --Michael Snow 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that guy(NGC), I still think that Wikipedia is alive, even if him and Andrew O are right about its closure, I still can't see Wikipedia dying that is all. 24.188.203.181 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality issue?[edit]

I'm calling for a community review of the neutrality of this article. Two key points are: 1) unreferenced (and possibly promotional) claims to importance about how he is such a mighty important and controversial technology commentator (really?) 2) a "Criticism of Wikipedia" section which seems to present his views about Wikipedia as fact rather than opinion, and again presents Carr as a central opinion-leader (really? because he subscribes to the New Yorker? kidding... I already removed that silly bit) 207.151.248.148 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty overblown to me. Carr is a former editor of the Harvard Business Review and his articles have received wide public attention and debate. You are under no obligation to agree with him, but he's clearly an important and relevant voice in the arguments over these issues gallowglass (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article makes claims that he has had a major impact on public discourse without supporting references. Being a HBR editor does not make a person automatically an important voice in discourse. If his articles have really received such wide attention and debate, it should be easy to reference the claims then - so why aren't they? And there are at least two points to the NPOV tag here. Regarding the second, the Criticism of Wikipedia section does not read as neutral in the way it presents his accusations as though they are authoritative statements rather than off-the-cuff blog postings by someone have may little expertise or experience of wikipedia. 207.151.250.107 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Carr Haters[edit]

People trash NC but they seldom are able to refute what he has written. That's because they know he's right and their jobs are going to go away. That's what hurts. Be honest, Haters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.97.10 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, refute what he has written, that would be quite simple, his claims are often clown shoes.--74.129.36.217 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact - you are right, but on some issues, I do not agree with you and would like to discuss them in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.36.51 (talkcontribs) 08:07, 26 April 2012‎