I had assumed that the CD Baby article would simply discuss shady ways to circumvent our various checks and balances (meatpuppetry comes to mind), but I was happy to see that it was actually a very solid, factual, logical article. The fact that it explicitly advises musicians to wait until they have some serious news coverage made me really happy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ editorial has been discussed at the WikiProject Medicine talk page, where Wikipedians noted several small inaccuracies. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the specific feature available only to editors who register for it, which the BMJ refers to, is the user interface gadget "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", documented at User:Pyrospirit/metadata.-gadfium 21:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, this is dismissive - "In keeping with its tradition of being highly critical of Wikipedia ...". Would you ever precede mention of a favorable article with "In keeping with its tradition of being highly promotional of Wikipedia ..." ? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Metz is, however, rather infamously critical of Wikipedia. But I agree that the current phrasing is poor. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And other people are infamously promotional of Wikipedia. The point is not that the article was critical. Instead, the phrasing seems to deride the criticism simply because it came from a critic. I contend that is unjustified here, especially since high-status Wikipedians have made similar criticisms of this situation -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think our readers are smart enough to understand that the WMF blog will have a pro wikipedia bais. In terms of commenting on media reaction background is sometimes useful and we can't yet expect everyone to know that the register has a pretty consistent negative and sensationalist take on wikipedia.©Geni 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of the WMF blog. There's a whole politics of Wikipedia promotion, and I do not see the same zeal to note it in prefatory comments. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a media source I can think of off hand that takes an inverse if the register's line. Some of the indian media perhaps but they tend not to do the same sensationalism. it's the shear consistency and sensationalism of the register's POV that makes it unusal.©Geni 03:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need exact inverse. Consider "In another puff-piece on CEO's ..." or "In another flogging of net-hype ..." or "In another regurgitation of a press-release for clicks ...". Those genres are quite common. An implicit argument is being made here, and the dismissiveness is unjustified in this case. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten what you wrote in your opening comment already?©Geni 04:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too often re-iterate my points, it's a weakness. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was unaware that Reg was habitually critical of WP until relatively recently, having stopped reading it round about when I left the telecomms industry. Most outlets are looking for news, good or bad, they mainly want a story (at least as far as WP is concerned). Being informed of a major bias like this is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]