Talk:MIT Technology Review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MIT Technology Review article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
| WikiProject Magazines | (Rated B-class, Mid-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Contents
POV[edit]
User:Dpbsmith has put a lot of effort into recent edits on this entry, but unfortunately the resulting article seems to be primarily an attack against the quality, marketing, and intentions of Technology Review, focusing especially on arguing that it's not as closely connected to MIT as people might think. These edits were precipitated by a mini edit-war on the main MIT article on whether or not Technology Review qualified as MIT's alumni magazine. This entry needs to be overhauled in a big way to present a more balanced POV.
Another related point is that I'd be more comfortable if newspaper references on Wikipedia all contained links to archived versions of those papers so that someone could easily verify the accuracy and full context of quotes. -- BrassRat 09:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Got any ideas on trimming and balancing it? It's probably a matter of subtle tone. Before I started working on it the article was information-sparse and a puff piece, paraphrased from their current blurbery, that said very little about what Technology Review actually is. The article was not intended to be an attack. For example I thought I made it very clear that the result of the changes has been to triple the circulation.
- The story of exactly what the relationship is turned out to be rather complicated, since the magazine before 1997 is totally different from what it is after 1997 and as I collected data points they sort of grew beyond anything I could summarize quickly. I thought I was very clear about saying that the Institute claims a "close" relationship, and that the magazine is owned by MIT.
- Do you have any problems with these general ideas:
- the relationship was close before 1997 and more distant after 1997?
- the 1997 overhaul was radical in nature
- the change involved an emphasis on trying to increase circulation be more commercial?
- the change was definitely successful at the first goal and probably the latter?
- the change was controversial and liked by some and disliked by some
- prior to 1997 the non-alumni content included much more material by MIT people and about MIT than after 1997--that is it now from MIT rather than of MIT?
- Juxtaposing the recent flap about a rogue freelancer and a statement of its formerly being considered trustworthy is definitely snarky and it was inappropriate to put it there.
- The newspaper references are from an online source that is available at no cost through my local public library and possibly yours, but you need to have a library card to access it. I can cite the source, but I can't let people use my library card number. Any ideas what to do about that? I have to say that I think a reference to a newspaper that gives date and page number is certainly verifiable, just like any print reference... there's never been any definition of verifiable to mean verifiable _online_; in fact I think there is or was a statement that print references are considered superior. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- More thoughts. Maybe the best way to do this is to separate the modern Technology Review from the historic Technology Review (two sections, one article) to avoid juxtapositions and odious comparisons. Modern TR section comes first, adjust emphasis to point out its success in its mission. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What do you think now?[edit]
Subject line says all. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a big improvement -- thanks for your hard work on this. I think it still needs editing and more descriptive content on topics beside its lineage, but I think we can remove the POV tag now. -- BrassRat 16:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Paragraphs with references[edit]
Oops. I moved a couple paragraphs and threw the footnote numbering out of sequence. Thanks to User:Dpbsmith for fixing this. I suppose I've just gotten so used to editing articles with no references at all that I don't bother to check such things. (Sadly, that's not really a joke.) Anville 16:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I've wanted something like the ref/note mechanism for a long time. This is the first time I really tried to use it and I have mixed feelings about it. Fortunately moving things around doesn't break any linkages, all that happens is that the numbers don't match. Maybe the right thing to do would be to change all the #'s to *'s in the list of notes before moving things around in an article and then change them back to #'s only when one has time to sort out the ordering. It only matters if the article is going to be printed out...
- You left some comment about people not italicizing publication names, which presumably means me. So let me ask in return: Are you sure that the right usage is:
- The New York Times
- as opposed to
- The New York Times?
- I would have thought that "The New York" was part of the publication's name; ditto for "Boston Globe." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess "modern" and "historical" won't work any more...[edit]
...no time to do more on this right now. Anyone with good ideas, edit away.
"Postmodern," "Modern," and "Historical?" Nope.
"Nascent," "Classic," and "Historical?" Uh-uh.
Dpbsmith (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Needs reorganizing[edit]
I don't know when I'll get around to it, but, yes, the references need to be converted to the new format, and, yes, someone needs to figure out how best to organize the article. Probably the lead should briefly describe the current magazine, and the sections should be placed in historical order: the "historical" magazine, the Bruce Journey era, and the post-Journey magazine. Or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Poor quality of feedback options on TR's web site[edit]
On October 22, 2013 Technology Review produced a damning article on The Decline of Wikipedia which, in my POV, was riddled with POV. I tried to find a mechanism to give feedback to MIT but their website only offerded contact options for such things as admission. Equivalent feedback and correction mechanisms, as are instantly available on Wikipedia, were not evident. I am just wondering whether this is worth a write up. Gregkaye (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not worth adding to this article. This is not an encylopedic issue. You would also have to find at least one reliable, secondary source to add it, or the addition would be original research, which not allowed here on Wikipedia. — Lentower (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
