Mike Wood's piece is very good, but I think that he omitted one of the more crucial points, only addressing it in a reply in the comments section, and even then only partially. If you POV push or whitewash the article on your company, and you're caught, not only is the article going to be heavily monitored in the future, but the people that try to bring the article back towards neutral will often go too far in the opposite direction, creating an article that is more negative that it was before the whitewashing. In rare cases, the whitewashing even gets picked up in the media (usually tech blogs rather than major newspapers). While I haven't seen it happen regularly, that media coverage means that the whitewashing can be written about in the article that was whitewashed. Viewers then will not only will see the 'bad information', but will then also see that you tried to hide it. Sven ManguardWha? 08:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there's no mention of the extremely active and extremely contentious move request on Chelsea Manning. PowersT 11:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add it myself if I wasn't involved in the discussion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, the caption "Bradley Manning ... now female" is actually pretty offensive. It's like saying someone that comes out of the closet wasn't homosexual until they did so. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as it seems that she has privately identified as being female for some time. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Manning's sex change" in the title is pretty bad too. Jessica Ryan (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I altered this caption. I agree that the title is bad - a "sex change" often refers to sex reassignment surgery, which is not the same thing at all as a public declaration of the gender one wishes to identify as. Dcoetzee 09:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the title to "coming out as transgender". Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now female as a public preference or decision. Seems OK to me. Tony(talk) 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hold off on using the obviously fair-use photo in this article until the deletion discussion is completed. Maybe comment it out? Marcus Qwertyus (talk)
This paper doesn't comment at all the fact that Wikipedia de, es, fr, ko, it, pl, etc. are using Bradley Manning as of now. Anything to say about that? Pldx1 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am, frankly, shocked at Risker's behavior. Her over-defensive treatment of an article under dispute, claiming that "even typos" are controversial, is absurd. We have always permitted minor housekeeping edits to full-protected articles by administrators without prior approval, and it is part of their regular duties, not a flaunting of their authority. Without this ability, it is impossible to make systematic edits affecting many articles (e.g. file or template renames) in an efficient and comprehensive manner. I certainly hope this doesn't set a precedent. Dcoetzee 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that Wikipedia Weekly 98 is now available, but I can't find the recording on the link given to the episode, only a description of the episode. Could someone please either clarify the link or fix the reference? effeietsanders 12:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I get tired when everyone talks about the gender gap, and how this is a huge problem, but noone seems to ever discuss any possible solutions. We could do a lot about the gender gap - such as asking female Wikipedians what could be done to improve things - but, instead, we seem to fall into this idea that just saying there's a gender gap, and this is a problem, absolves us of any further responsibility. It's circular discussion at its worst. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
