Talk:Wired (website)

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:
• Wired (magazine)
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Wired (magazine)
Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

Journalism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles

Websites: Computing

	This redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Differentiation

Wired Magazine and Wired.com are two seperate entities from each other and need two seperate pages but I suggest improvement on the infobox for the wiki made for the website like adding the logo and information thats lacking Biofare (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwired and Wired News are also completely different entities. The Hotwired page could use a great deal more information as it was a pioneering site (first content to sell banner ads I seem to remember among other things?). Davidbrake (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Davidbrake. ARK (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks/Wired/Pvt Bradley Manning Controversy.

The correct way to write up the Wikileaks affair is not to simply dump a link to an article by a person arguing one side in contentious controversy. It violates NPOV. Also, it implies that this controversy is central to research about Wired. This would be akin to posting a single link to the criticism of Glenn Greenwald about this in the article about Salon.com

I believe that anything concerning the Pvt Manning/Wikileaks controversy is better placed in the various Wikileaks articles, such as Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak or United States diplomatic cables leak and various successor articles, or in the article about Bradley Manning. SterlingNorth (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia shouldn't outsource its work to others. If we want to add a section about the Manning controversy, we do more than throw a link up to an advocate or critic presenting one side. I would also object to simply throwing up two links, one from Greenwald and one from Wired in response to Greenwald. SterlingNorth (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware, the link was supposed to be the starting point about the subsection, not the final version.

Further, this article is not about Wired, it's about Wired News. This is a serious controversy about Wired News that's made the world press. It's involved both Kevin Poulsen and the EDITOR IN CHIEF OF WIRED NEWS Evan Hansen who have both written major pieces on the controversy. Journalists from Wired Magazine have been publicly distancing themselves from Wired News over the issue. Refusing to address it in this article would be akin to refusing to address a serious issue Salon.com is involved in, involving Glenn Greenwald and whoever the editor of Salon is these days (it's not still Walsh I think, but I can't remember who they replaced her with), that's attracted international press attention, etc.

It's safe to say that many people's FIRST EXPOSURE to Wired News is through this controversy. It absolutely should be addressed here. It's absolutely wrong for you to attempt to suppress the subject. If you don't like the way it's written, fix it, don't break it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.58.8 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This appears to be named just "Wired" now. Should this be renamed? --Chealer (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it definitely should. Since February! High time we got on with it, as nobody will know what "Wired News" is pretty soon. I'm going to be bold as we are all Wiki-ly exhorted to be, and move it now to Wired (website) which I think is unambiguous and easy to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]