When Wikipedia was little (when I started in early 2004, we were #500 in the world. I was seriously impressed), and I was just someone who volunteered to answer a UK press enquiry then another one, we were in the technical press a lot.
The trouble with the technical press is that they are whores. Cheap diseased ones. (The press in general arguably is, but the tech press are so blatant.) Previously whores to print advertisers, now whores to ad-banner trolling. So unsubstantiable bullshit is the order of the day, because IT GETS THE CLICKS.
Some of you aren’t whores, but you know damn well you’re few and far between. The rest can fuck off, thanks.
Wikipedia should have ignored the tech press from the start. You should too. Taking someone seriously just because they pay you attention is not a good idea.
It’s so much nicer dealing with the mainstream press — at least they can spell “journalism.” They can’t work computers, but anything you can’t explain in a difficult-to-corrupt soundbite you can’t explain.
What have they done to you? I seriously don’t know which “technical press” you mean. Can you give us an example, a few links?
I suggest you do a Google News search on “Wikipedia” and see how much fits the description and what sort of press it is.
Nothing to be surprised about really the Tech press are whores. Have you ever been to CES? It’s evident with their so called reviews and bullshit that you read after the fact. Completely biased garbage if you ask me.