Talk:Techdirt

Untitled
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)
 * TechDirt is not a site I often visit but is well-respected within the IT and tech sphere, cited pretty often, as in this article from today's The Register (10 paras in): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/18/open_and_shut/. Unless you would suggest The Register is not a 'notable' publication too? I'm afraid I found your suggestion that this widely-cited blog is not 'notable' rather odd. Further, TechDirt attracts constant and widespread criticism from the copyright & IP lobbies, so I'm a little concerned when I read a veiled suggestion that its Wikipedia page may possibly be considered for deletion.Blitterbug 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)
 * I wasn't saying the site wasn't notable, just that the Wikipedia page doesn't give any indication of why it is notable. The Wikipedia page should detail where and when it is cited, and what it has achieved, which should be easy if it is a well-cited blog.

Eqqman (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Funding from Google?
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)


 * You have the causality reversed. It's not that Google funds Techdirt, so therefore Techdirt's stance is similar to Google's.  It's that Techdirt's stance is compatible with Google, so therefore it's more likely to get funding from Google.  Anyway, this is all WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY - if a news article in a reliable source talks about it, something can maybe be added to an article, but even as is, it may be too boring to mention.  Google funds a lot of stuff, much of it with only very indirect "political" impact.  SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Still considered a blog?
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)


 * personally, I think what defines a 'blog' is mostly how something presents/formats/whatever itself, but I wouldn't know. jan Sowan(here's my talk page!) 17:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sus
This is very obviously managed by an interested party. Nobody cares? 142.126.140.83 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)