[lacker]

Recently it seems like the NYTimes jumps on every opportunity to write articles about the downsides of its new-media competitors. First LinkedIn crowdsourcing, now problems with Wikipedia decentralization. Just getting a bit old.

[quizbiz]

I didn't catch a negative tone. It seemed appreciative of the fact that "Mr. Wales, himself, unfroze the page" when the situation ended.

Personal situations like these where freedom of speech doesn't serve public interest are hard to come by.

[thras]

I've noticed a few of those articles myself.

[hyperbovine]

On the contrary, this article barely seemed newsworthy, and certainly not befitting of coverage in (still) the most influential newspaper in the world. To me the whole thing seemed like a way of thanking Jimbo Wales and the editors of Wikipedia. Although given the hell that is now going to rain down upon them from the tinfoil-hat crowd, I kind of wonder if this was the best way to go about it :)

[gojomo]

Not newsworthy?!?!

It's a great article, revealing heretofore unreported aspects of Wikipedia governance. (Wikipedia is the top hit for so many topics that its importance is up there with Google, the NY Times, and network TV news.) And, the events are in relation to a vivid, emotional, recent story with relevance to journalism, terrorism, and foreign policy in the middle east.

This could have gone much earlier in the paper than p. B4, and deserves some independent reporting by another outlet not directly involved.