I noticed that too Brian, and acknowledge him for that! Well done. But
then? this is all about a network, a context, community attribution.
Maybe we do not need anything like that. Keith is right about that.
Good theory and criticism does not need that at all. As long as it
hits, and hurts. Our
It takes time and energy to impose order on a system. Clearly
many many segments of the 'developed world' are manifesting the
inevitable decrease in the energy available to maintain their own
order.
Or, the perceived decline in fact-checking could rather be
the result of a continued ascendance
John (H), I'm not sure how it helps anyone to say that the declining
editorial quality of a posh magazine is inexorably linked in some
thermodynamicky way with the ultimate fate of the universe. If it is,
then so is everything else, which doesn't really lead us anywhere but a
metaphysical
What occurs to me in this affair, is the New Yorker's presumption of its own
cutting edge originality. The editors assumed they were going to the source, or
at least the best informed and most highly pedigreed (read: fashionable)
journalist when they went to Morozov.
The New Yorker has never
A simple example was a number I ran across when researching the US
Interstate (aka, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways) system -- that right now it would
take the energy equivalent of all remaining declared Suadi oil
reserves to re-build that system.
On 19/Oct/14 08:53, David Mandl wrote:
It seems clear that the New Yorker is no longer home of the best
fact-checking/copyediting humankind can achieve.
It takes time and energy to impose order on a system. Clearly many many
segments
of the 'developed world' are manifesting the inevitable
On 10/19/14 3:01 PM, John Hopkins wrote:
On 19/Oct/14 08:53, David Mandl wrote:
It seems clear that the New Yorker is no longer home of the best
fact-checking/copyediting humankind can achieve.
It takes time and energy to impose order on a system. Clearly many many
segments of the 'developed
On 10/17/14 6:30 AM, d.garcia wrote:
The Morozov article is indeed very misleading. There is nothing in the
New Yorker headline to indicate that this is anything other that an
article full of the ideas and research by Morozov himself.
A headline does not usually have a dual function as a
The New Yorker's dandy Eustace Tilley embodied highbrow journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker
Haughtily disdaining on the cover annually lowbrow rigorous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_checkerfact checking
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyeditingcopyediting, its
What I'm wondering is, where is Luther Blissett in all this? Now there's
a guy who was interested in the ideas, not the authors. There's a guy
(but it was also a girl) who really knew how to plagiarize.
But... But... But... it's dawning on me! We misunderestimated him!
Evgeny Morozov is a
Organized envy sounds like a fair characterization. But the organization
is small and centered on a few friends and associates of Medina. Then
there are others engaging in opportunistic one-offs on Twitter and
Facebook, at various levels of engagement.
It's far from clear that Morozov has made
Hello Geert,
I think you've summed it up quite well... I'm not sure there's something more
behind this.
Was this plagiarism? I don't think so, if the words are original. But for
the historian, the piece is certainly not bringing enough new material (if
at all...), and does not properly quote its
On 15 Oct 2014, at 20:30, gab fest wrote:
Organized envy sounds like a fair characterization. But the
organization is small and centered on a few friends and associates of
Medina. Then there are others engaging in opportunistic one-offs on
Twitter and Facebook, at various levels of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/10/14 03:17 AM, Geert Lovink wrote:
Will this scandal be the beginning of his downfall?
Morozov has dealt in second-hand goods since his conversion. I've
never met anyone he's fooled. So I'm not sure what his downfall would
entail.
-BEGIN
Hi Ted,
Thanks for the best contribution to this thread. I am sure you are right to
emphasise the contradiction between scholasticism and reaching a broader
public. I am convinced that a lot of it was envy of Morozov's public reach
and I too wonder if his apparently perverse career move into the
15 matches
Mail list logo
