Talk:ZDNET

Fair use rationale for Image:ZDNet.PNG
Image:ZDNet.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"The use of a partisan edge in their commentary has surprised many longtime readers."
I am removing this sentence pending verification/sourcing or at least some explanation. I went to ZDNet, and if they have a "partisan edge" it's rather inscrutable. There's definitely some posts up about environmental issues, and a few posts relating to US politics with a perspective I'd call "vague" at best, but I'm not seeing any real "partisan edge". Mr. IP (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

it's "webzine" - shouldn't it be "webzine covering IT"?
as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.96.132 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Offering Help
Saw this article needed help. What can I do? ReginaldTQ (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me... ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Something's not right about the date for Builder.com
The date, 2002, given for the launch of Builder.com (CNET Years) doesn't make sense. I was a senior editor for Builder.com starting after CNET bought ZDNet. I was in that position for about six months before CNET bought TechRepublic.com and closed Builder.com. The year was 2001. They were going to lay off the entire Builder.com staff on the week of 9/11/2001, but opted to wait a week because of the events of 9/11. I read the press release cited, but do not understand how Builder.com could have been launched in 2002, when it was already up and running when I joined CNET, and was shut down in late 2001. Textheavy (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

content query
Anyone have any idea why this site uses English spellings, e.g., 'plough'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename
The article should be "ZDNet". I realize we don't always use corporate style, but it is camel case, it is confusing when all-caps because it looks like an acronym for five words. The word means or meant "Ziff Davis Net". The alternative is "Zdnet" but this would be equally confusing and jarring as ZDNET. -- Green  C  00:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)