Charles Arthur - Lame Arse Journalist 
I read some
crap a few months back while I was in australia, i mean the journalism was appalling.
It's basically an attack on wikipedia and open-source software, nothing new and not surprising from an established paper threatened by wikipedia.
But what makes this guy, Charles Arthur, a real lame arse journalist is not the amount of interestingly-not-particularly-factual titbits he has no offer but that is all stems off his introductory premise:
What I realised - perhaps it was the mention of Scientology - is that Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Wikipedia, or Apple's products.
From this is continues to blast wikipedia and open-source in general.
The problem is that his premise is narrowing passion down to being a cult and he really needs to understand, and to atleast to make the reader aware, where this passion comes from in these
fanatics. The passion comes in a number of forms but generally comes down to basic human rights of freedom and sharing of knowledge for the greater good. Not exactly what comes to mind when I think of a cult.
His argument is quite simply flawed by looking at other passionate groups in society, those against the death penalty, those against war, or those trying to protect the environment. These groups are not viewed as cults. By trying to associate seriousness and passion to cult-worship is just lame. Charles Arthur obviously got his journalism skills off the back of a wheatbix box. Charles is trying to be hip and trendy with infactual criticism. Maybe he should just try for good old humour instead...
Other wikipedia criticisms can be found
here
