![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notability - This page does not cite any independent sources who consider the website notable enough to write nontrivial works focusing on it. It gives a description of the blog and discusses its popularity, but the independent sources cited only talk about its description and popularity as well; they do not give a reason this should be considered notable. Eqqman ( talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Eqqman ( talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I recently learned that Techdirt is selling out pretty hard. Apparently it's been true for a while, but it wasn't as clearly disclosed. Techdirt is also the "Copia Institute", a think tank which Mike Masnick also runs. It receives funding from a variety of tech industry companies, including Google. This is a huge conflict of interest, as he advocates for many of the political positions Google lobbies for and funds lobbyists to promote. Copia appears on Google's list of third parties their public policy (aka lobbying) arm has made "substantial" contribution to.
Copia Institute Google's disclosure of Copia funding
I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I feel like Techdirt's article should probably note that it is in part a lobbying arm of Google's political agenda. 65.60.144.245 ( talk) 16:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Since Techdirt seems to have many writers, an editorial staff, defended itself in a heavy-weight lawsuit from the "email" guy, why is it still called a blog in this article? I can think of a number of "news sites" that are far dodgier. AndroidCat ( talk) 13:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This is very obviously managed by an interested party. Nobody cares? 142.126.140.83 ( talk) 04:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)