Ken Rockwell a self proclaimed know it all?

I agree, it's one of those 'entertainment' sites.  Honestly I get creeped out when I look at him.  

Rockwell has counted to infinity....twice!

LMAO!!!!

I shouldn't join in on the feeding frenzy, his site has been useful to me. I donate nothing so I'm taking it for nothing and should have no complaints...

Makes you wonder how much he pulls in from those donations.  I remember when I first got into photography, I donated $10.  I stopped going to the site because another blog had pointed out an error in his work with a handful of other photographers following suit.  

You can find errors in lots of places. I just get weary of the feeding frenzy, piling on...its kind of snobbish in its own right...

I, and several others, have reapeatedly notified the Nikonians website of errors in their camera lens compatibility charts over the years yet those errors still remain. Thus KR isn't the only site with erroneous info...

I agree that he's 'different', and that much of it is satire. I think you gotta take him with a grain of salt, he seems to write comments meant with a bit of sarcasm or intended humor. I have found some good information on there although I haven't looked at his site in a long time.

None of these type sites are media outlets, they're just a site someone does as a hobby or maybe as a business if they're making enough money at it. A media outlet (from my experience in sports) is a publication (magazine, newspaper), radio or TV station, etc. As in, an actual media business with actual employees and hired paid staff with editors and supervisors, etc. That runs payroll and withhold taxes and offers benefits just like any employer does.  Not just some guy with or without a fro doing a website and/or videos.

I have to say the term 'donate' doesn't seem appropriate when it doesn't involve a charity. I don't think I'd just give someone money. It seems more appropriate to either charge a fee for usage, or make it available at no charge.

Want a good read?  See this article -  anotherangle.eu/posts/why-ken-rockwell-is-bad-for-photography/

One dude's opinion, I found little interest reading what I already knew....
Edit: I've seen as much Rockwell-like  poppycock from the pages of Kelby....

He literally states on his site that it's satire.  Take it what it's for.

Eh, just skip his page and gibberish  

I'm still laughing at the Chuck Norris reference.  

effron wrote: Rockwell has counted to infinity....twice!

I was like what??   And then got the joke!  

I find this thread somewhat amusing and remain substantially bemused by the approach here.

firstly, Ken Rockwell really isn't here to defend himself. That seems a little unfair, don't you think? I distinctly remember in the 'rules of the game' here that derogatory or indefensible comments would be considered unacceptable to the ethos of the site. Poor old Ken is being berated somewhat by those who profess to know better yet there is a diquietening silence from the authorities.

but let's consider the logic here.

if Ken is to be considered a 'know it all' ( I assume that is meant in a sarcastic manner) the perpetrator of such sarcasm surely must profess to know more that Ken does on the matter. 

Does that hat not make the critic one step up from a 'know it all'?
i don't know what we should call such a person but I'm sure someone here could come up with a suitable phrase.

 Have taken the opportunity to read snippets of Ken's blog, just to keep informed of the nature of the accusations here. He seems to differ little from the approach any number of others express on the Internet.

self made experts are a dime a dozen. At any time it's difficult for the beginner to  select the flowers of wisdom from the weeds. Even on this site I find misinformation, assumptions based on hypothesis, fabrications, myths and hear say.

thats not to say the whole site is a waste of time or even destructive.

what is does suggest is that we read with what we know and test what we don't know. 
Knowledge is accumulative. Facts are based on evidence and testing. Evidence must be repeatable and testing must be legitimate.

its not sufficient to expouse an opinion in a learning situation without it being challenge if the opinion contradicts the facts. Untested opinions instill biases in our conversation. Ask any Nikon owner what they think of a canon camera. If they suggest Nikon is better than canon they are biased and should either be challenged in a constructive manner or ignored.

might I suggest to those who have a strong opinion regarding Ken's knowledge or lack thereof, to select an example or two so we might see where the problem lies. 

So so far I have only seen accusations from those I assume know more.
if that is the case, tell us more, or remain in the 'know it all catagory'

cheers
tom