Talk:TechCrunch/Archives/2014

Criticism section / dead pile
Cleaning up some mess from the criticism section. Not assuming any bad faith on anyone's part, but people sure seem to like to add negative information about TechCrunch. Rather than simply deleting, I'll keep them here as a courtesy in case anyone wants to comment, re-source, restore, etc.


 * ...most recently with Edgeio, a classifieds site partly owned by TechCrunch Chief editor Michael Arrington
 * User-submitted comments on a blog are not proper sources. See sourcing policy.  Moreover, citing a blog as evidence of what users say on the blog is original research.  I have doubts whether this could ever be a valid criticism to raise given that it seems to relate to Arrington's actions with respect to a company other than TechCrunch.  Further, as per the last mediation, it was pointed out that a criticism section should not overwhelm the weight of the article.  In a comprehensive article about the subject some criticism may be warranted if it is truly germane to the company and not just random detractors or incidents.  If a reputable newspaper were to publish a serious expose of a company, the key issues might be noteworthy.  This does not seem to fit that category. Wikidemo 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * TechCruch UK, but was shut down following a public argument between Arrington, editor Sam Sethi, and Loic Le Meur on 13 December 2006.
 * This is a sentence fragment so I'm removing it as a matter of copy-editing. It seems to be half of a sentence that was in fact retained following the mediation process.  I have my doubts about the appropriateness of the tone, but if anyone cares to dig up the other half of the sentence and add it back I wouldn't object.Wikidemo 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is worth re-adding as it received a hell of a lot of coverage in the blogosphere. I will try to clean it up later. Computerjoe 's talk 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs
]