Please note that the full encyclopedia content of Britannica.com will be completely free as in beer for one week starting yesterday. I hope that editors will use this short opportunity to make an effort to compare Britannica's content to our Wikipedia:Short popular vital articles because such comparisons present the opportunity for very rapid improvement of our most important deficient content, this week only. Npmay (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the many commentators who've lamented the loss of alphabetically adjacent entries stealing your attention as you look up an entry, I present Serendipity, a user script that'll bring that essential, missing functionality to Wikipedia. (Add importScript("User:Mxn/serendipity.js"); to this page.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I took the liberty of removing "another print institution struggling to come to terms with the digital era" from the description of The New York Times. Strictly speaking, it's true, but I think most people agree that other newspapers are struggling far more, so it's a bit misleading and feels like a random cheap shot. The Times at least was lucky enough to have a pile of money sitting around when the bottom fell out from under the print industry in ~2004, so they could afford to pursue a digital transition strategy, and it hasn't been as incompetent as many of their competitors at it. See this article for more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/business/media/times-company-posts-loss-on-write-down.html You'll note that Times Company reports a loss, but that's largely because of small regional papers which are dying horrible deaths, not the NYT itself. I think the consensus view is that in 5-10 years, there'll be 3-4 big fish left in the pond, and all the minnows will be dead, but that the NYT will almost certainly be one of the big fish.
I also see that I was immediately reverted as a poor "misguided reader." Care to explain why you think this comment deserves to remain, Skomorokh? SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what I was saying before... http://newsonomics.com/new-york-times-digital-transition-worth-34-million-annually-and-counting/ is another relevant link. I don't think any other paper in the business is close to that level of digital revenue. http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/news-publishers-missing-tablet-opportunity/ talks about problems that the Times are having... in that "The paper’s paywall continues to thrive, and digital advertising revenue was up 5% in the quarter. However, the success online can’t make up for the continued free-fall in the much more profitable print advertising business." The article's "struggling to come to terms with the digital era" quote implies that the NYT is sticking their head in the sand and pretending online doesn't exist, like many other newspapers did and the Britannica did to some extent as well; what'd be more accurate is that the NYT is struggling with the decline of print, a side-effect of the "digital era." I dunno. This feels like referring to the ranking chess grandmaster as "struggling with the rise of algorithmic computer opponents." A 100% true statement, but also misleading in that it implies the grandmaster is off their game somehow, when in fact everyone else is even worse off. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire's correction/improvement makes sense to me. I'm uncomfortable about a level of independence that doesn't allow for corrections - doesn't that belong on a separate blog site, or at least outside of the "Wikipedia:" namespace? It certainly jars with the impression I had of the Signpost. --Chriswaterguytalk 02:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
