Talk:The Register

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

New section - Comment Guidelines[edit]

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)

Comment Filtering[edit]

I was told by several people that The Register filters out comments that don't fit a particular political point of view. I posted many comments to their articles to see if this was true and all of my comments were posted until I started posting pro-WikiLeaks comments on their Julian Assange articles. All of those comments were filtered out. I hope someone will produce some references so that this important detail can be added to this Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.51 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never had that trouble myself and i have publcally supported Assainge on their forums. Here's their explanation of what will and won't make the cut. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/comment_guidelines_2010/ Jenova20 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have regularly had that problem and so, according to forum comments, have many others. As soon as they post something which contradicts or refutes the editorial stance, particularly of Lewis or Orlowski, the comment is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.100.108 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Older comments[edit]

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 Register is a UK publication; "licenced" is an entirely acceptable form of the word. Reverting - David Gerard 19:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nope. The above is the UK spelling rule. Americans just use 's' always. Morwen - Talk 19:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I looked up 'licenced' and found it as a valid form ... hmm. - David Gerard 19:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
American dictionaries (particularly dictionary.com) do tend to give "licenced" as a British form, partly due to the American ignorance of the nuances of the English language. However, the OED or lesser British dictionaries will give you the correct form. —Wereon 11:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
e.g. "licenced premises" is common. But "licensed" is used also. I would strongly question deeming "licenced" always incorrect - David Gerard 11:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Google gives me 28 hits for 'licenced' in site:hmso.gov.uk and 3,500 for 'licensed'. 80.229.39.194 11:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Licence is as much a verb as practise is a noun. "Licenced" belongs to the same category of non-words as "vapourise", "humourous" and "offencive". —Wereon 14:33, 16 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:

"The Register" has been known to occasionally publish a harsh opinion on Wikipedia, pointing out the latter's failings and errors. One then may ponder upon "The Register's" own veracity or reliability, seeing how their material depends on the judgement of a few individuals, who lack the experience and education of the countless thousands who read, review, and are allowed to correct the content of Wikipedia. Doubtlessly, the editorial staff of "The Register" possess as good credentials as any journalist, but one might assume that only mature individuals, who are confident in the nature of their fellow humans, would empower anyone to make contributions to a wikiwiki -- but this is obviously just one point of view. Because Wikipedia embraces a policy known as Neutral Point of View, it is obvious that no one in the Wikipedia community would express a harsh judgement upon individuals who are simply attempting to earn a living in the best manner they could find.

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)

Im a long time reader of The Register, and would as well find information on that aspect of the site's history interesting.Dxco 04:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


In Jokes[edit]

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)

I take it you don't enjoy The Register then. And a lot of the misspelled letters are from stupid and ignorant people. Stephen B Streater 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Attacks on Wikipedia[edit]

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)

That would be a bit self-refferential dont ya think? Agnte 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with that if they seem to truly hold a grudge against Wikipedia? It would attest to their claiming to be a true news source yet only giving one side of the debate a voice. Nrbelex (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, many of The Register's criticisms are valid. It would be inappropriate to turn this article into a response to articles in The Reg. This would basically be original research. Instead of trying to rebut valid criticism, we should try to learn from it and improve WP accordingly. Claims that the debate is one sided are incorrect since most media coverage of WP is overwhelmingly positive. There's nothing wrong with having a vocal critic to keep WP honest. Pburka 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is then - carry on :P Nrbelex (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll.--Ezeu 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe the article is complete without at least mentioning what amounts to a vendetta against Wikipedia. This is not the place to refute the accusations or defend Wikipedia, but the omission of any mention almost qualifies as censorship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerzilla (talkcontribs) 15:52, 20 December 2005
That is probably what the provocateurs want. I guess we will eventually yeild and endulge in petty pie casting. --Ezeu 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The article seems complete without mentioning The Register's apparent vendetta against Itanium. What makes their criticisms of Wikipedia different? Pburka 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not be amused by their reporting if I was on the Itanium design or marketing teams; however, you have to concede that they correctly predicted from the very start that Itanium would not be, shall we say, a runaway success sweeping all before it. -- Karada 03:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep the section or remove it, but if if it's there a citation/reference is badly needed.--Outlyer 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added an example link to a criticism. This is pretty complimentary though by their standards. Stephen B Streater 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As a frequent reader and supporter of both The Register and Wikipedia, I was surprised by the presence of the paragraph remarking that The Register often criticizes Wikipedia. I found it more of a side comment than part of the main description of the purpose of The Register. Perhaps we could consider moving these remarks to a separate section, either a "The Register and Wikipedia" section, or even a bullet point under a "Trivia" section as with many other articles. --83.46.77.245 16:15, 9 August 2006 (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)

Tabloid Journalism[edit]

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.

It's the technology journalism equivalent of Private Eye; half satire, half serious news, half in-jokes. Their news reporting can easily be distinguished from their satirical content, if you are not gullible enough to ignore the rather wide hints provided (such as Otto's biography). -- Karada 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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/w/index.php?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)

All news sources have an agenda, whether obvious or not. They're all biased in some way to something or against something. This isn't a forum though and don't edit other peoples posts here. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for more information on why your accusation on this talk page won't accomplish anything. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

El Reg[edit]

I think it should be noted that not just "Staff Members" call The Regsiter "El Reg", but so do many of their readers.

What about this?[edit]

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)

I see no reason to put a mention of it, since there is no mention about previous articles. Basically, whatever criticism El Reg writes about wikipedia represents a very little part of the articles, so there is little reason to mention it.
And of course, if anybody wants to ANSWER the criticism, it would be original research, NPOV, unencyclopedic and what else to put it on wikipedia. ^^ Ratfox (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"The first Register article was published on 1 August 1998."[edit]

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)

If you read the publisher's statement on the audited server logs for 2005, it states that the register began in 1995 as an email newsletter, published its first web presence in January 1997 and became a daily news operation in May 1997. --TimTay (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Today (18th April 2008), they are celebrating their 10th birthday. [4] CS Miller (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Redesign[edit]

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)

Reverting of new comment[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 06:04, March 8, 2009

Because it is still pointless trivia. Listing every instance is not necessary. This isn't an article about Google.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
yep, thats the point, the second change doesnt list every instance, only the most recent and it cites a reference. On this occasion its rather a moot point as its a minor part of a small article, but would the same logic apply to other areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.79.218 (talkcontribs) 09:44, March 9, 2009
No one else able to comment? Please point out correct procedure if this in the wrong place; Simply ignoring is not helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.79.218 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because you can reference something doesn't mean it should be included. Its minor and trivial and isn't necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
ok thanks for that; guess its down to personal preference; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.79.218 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Italics?[edit]

Per WP:ITALICS, websites should not be italicized. Why is The Register italicized in the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

From the cats and footer, it looks like some are considering it a web=-only magazine. Looking at the site, though, I don't see any evidence it is one nor a web-only newspaper as it does not appear to have distinct issues/volumes. So I've removed the italics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue was discussed fairly recently at Template talk:Infobox website#Italicize site name. The non-italicized version seems to correspond to other sites in the genre. However, being news sites with original content, it would seem that they should be italicized! -- Trevj (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Image needs fair use rationale[edit]

File:The Register r.png needs a fair use rationale specifically for this article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Let me see if I can pop one in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Party sources[edit]

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)

"This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications". What kind of references is this asking for? There are no 'reference required' tags and the website that is the subject of the article clearly exists. This request for third-party references has been there for 1.5 years. Mtpaley (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not "an online lesbian magazine" - to describe it as such is totally wrong. Mtpaley (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Every article ought to have reliable third-party sources. I don't know what someone thought particularly needed referencing, but the article I linked in September 2009 collects some possible sources.
  2. It was a joke (one which I thought was clear). The suggestion that we slavishly adhere to WP:V in the face of common sense was ironic, and was negated in the following sentence. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
For BOFH, here is a 3rd party reference - No Idea how to cite it correctly though http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.62.29 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2012 (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)

"Unverifiable list" template[edit]

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)

Template:ORList had been added to Template:Major English-language Science and Technology Magazines which is included in this article. I have reverted the change to the template.--Racklever (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Editorial bias / style / background under Lewis Page - armed forces procurement cf. climate change stance[edit]

Page's history as an author (one book listed on Amazon, "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-And-Dinosaurs-Blundering/dp/0099484420)) and his lack of experience in the fields which he attacks (military procurement, climate science) have been criticised for an extraordinarily similar style and approach to that for which he has been criticised for editorial articles in The Register and attacks on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the following quotes from critical reviews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0099484420/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0)

"Sub-Daily Mail nonsense, 27 Mar 2009:

Sadly the author's limited military experience seems to have not included working in procurement, but did include reading lots of tabloid newspapers. Evidence is selected to support the main rant (everyone in the military apart from him is stupid), any data that gets in the way is ignored or distorted. All your favorite cliches are here: buffoonish senior officers (clearly ranks above Mr. Page's are all idiots); all Civil Servants are exactly like Sir Humphrey. All this without any insights beyond the authors personal and service predudices.
I'd rather look forward to an intelligent insiders view of military procurement. Sadly this is not even close."

"Naive, and media-led, 26 Feb 2006:

It's not surprising that this book has been so well recived by the media. Because it simply repeats all of the tripe that they print. Mr Page has fallen into the trap of believing everything he reads in the papers, without, it seems, pausing to think about whether there might be an agenda behind those reports. So he rehashes old, inaccurate and naive stories and choses to give no credit - because he and his publishers are not interested in doing so - to the huge succeses that there have been in equipment to the front line. Example - why did the UK pay so much more for its Apaches that the Isrealis? Because the Brits bought an entirely different, and much more capable version that has made a phenominal difference to the Army's capability. Der..so not surprising that they cost more is it? But then good news stories don't sell, do they?Mr Page doesn't seem to appreciate that - since nobody has written about it in the papers, actually there is a very sophisticated process for assessing needs, costs and risks involved in buying defence equipment, that has to take into account that this stuff is rather more complex than buying a family car. Sure, it's entertaining, but (aside from the annoying writing style), this needs to be taken as a work of fiction, not fact."

"A Dreadful Book, 13 Dec 2009:

This poorly researched book panders to every prejudice and stereotype that currently passes for comment on military procurement but reveals little of any value. It is remarkable that, despite the catalogue of woe that characterises much (but not all) of defence procurement, his inadequate research and dearth of any of the sort military experience that would give him genuine insight means he repeatedly misses the target. All he ends up doing is a tabloid commentary puffed out by his poorly thought through schoolboy solutions. Don't buy it, you'll only encourage him to write more similar tosh."

"Right wing, sensationist, rubbish., 18 Dec 2010:

Now military incompetence is something I like to write about myself, and military spending is something I'd like to see a lot less of BUT this book is still tripe.
Now it's one thing to say that it's better to build a hospital than a jet fighter, it's quite another to suggest that the military's toys don't actually work.
I've no idea whether any of the gossip and rumour that Lewis reports as fact is actually true, but given that when they get to be used in action the stuff seems to have no trouble blowing bad guys to bits, I doubt it is.
The Apache is a case in point. We could have bought the vanilla version and saved a lot of dosh, but I doubt we could have actually used in in battle. Ditto the Type 45. Do we need it to guard aircraft carriers with no jets on them? Probably not. But could one shoot down the entire Argentine air force single handedly? Probably it could.
As a leftie who wants less defence spending even if it means less defence I wonder just what Lewis's goals are in this book. I suspect his motivation is not that he desires world disarmament, but simply that he doesn't like paying taxes."
  • I've removed a section about one Register staffer's science writing that was almost entirely composed of original research – citing no sources, primary sources or search results (!). There were a couple of valid secondary sources in it: [5][6]. I guess if we had a rounded reception section, one could add a sentence saying that some of the site's science writing has been criticised by other science writers, but (1) I am not sure how representative those two sources are (it's basically a Guardian blog post and a Huffington Post piece) and (2) a reception section should cover the site in general (science reporting is a fairly small part of their content) in order to be balanced. Andreas JN466 22:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)