This is one of the dumbest and most explicitly bad-faith things I've ever read. I say this with the most generosity I can muster: Please leave journalism and do something else.
What a constructive piece of criticism, Anonymous. It does inadvertently bring up a good point though. Consider Craig Minassian's quote from the INET article (I'm assuming you're referring to that), "…communications departments are being rebranded as ‘newsrooms’ to emphasize their goal to produce relevant, informative content…"
In other words, according to Minassian, press releases are real journalism nowadays. Of course, that's a prospect that would and should make real journalists viscerally react. Instead, we have "news" stories like this from Wired about Wikipedia Enterprise that are nothing more than elongated press releases: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/.
They blindly accept Wikimedia's assertion that there's a need for funds, do not question Wikimedia about how much time/money is being spent servicing Big Tech, and essentially reprint a press release, just as Minassian (and you) believe they should. Then they wonder what happened to their subscriber base.
If you want to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest signing your comments and citing issues with specificity. Anonymity might be acceptable on Wikipedia but, outside, it looks like a cowardly and somewhat pathetic ad hominem attack.
This is one of the dumbest and most explicitly bad-faith things I've ever read. I say this with the most generosity I can muster: Please leave journalism and do something else.
What a constructive piece of criticism, Anonymous. It does inadvertently bring up a good point though. Consider Craig Minassian's quote from the INET article (I'm assuming you're referring to that), "…communications departments are being rebranded as ‘newsrooms’ to emphasize their goal to produce relevant, informative content…"
In other words, according to Minassian, press releases are real journalism nowadays. Of course, that's a prospect that would and should make real journalists viscerally react. Instead, we have "news" stories like this from Wired about Wikipedia Enterprise that are nothing more than elongated press releases: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/.
They blindly accept Wikimedia's assertion that there's a need for funds, do not question Wikimedia about how much time/money is being spent servicing Big Tech, and essentially reprint a press release, just as Minassian (and you) believe they should. Then they wonder what happened to their subscriber base.
If you want to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest signing your comments and citing issues with specificity. Anonymity might be acceptable on Wikipedia but, outside, it looks like a cowardly and somewhat pathetic ad hominem attack.