Discuss this story

Seeing myself quoted in the story on the Lynton Crosby was a bit scary, though the story was generally accurate (I don't think that it's accurate to say that "entire Crosby Textor computer networks" were blocked though, and when commenting on and subsequently blocking accounts involved in this matter I was at pains to stress that the conflict of interest was apparent given that I had, and have, no way of confirming whether or not it actually was linked to the firm). The journalist did a pretty solid job of digging through article histories, talk page histories and the SPI report when compiling the story - it's a very Wikipedia-literate piece. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists often make overly broad or outright incorrect claims about blocks, even in otherwise good articles about Wikipedia. In shorter pieces I just ignore those claims, sometimes I try to correct journalistic misconceptions in longer ones. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since womyn is an actual word, are we sure the [sic] is warranted? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • My intent was to highlight the editor's obviously sarcastic use of the word, but it's now clear that it seemed I was implying it was not an actual word. Rich has the right idea, and I see someone's already implemented it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not possible (in an inversion of Poe's law) to presume that the editor was being sarcastic. There exists within the feminist movement some rejection of transgender people - to the extent that a term has been created to describe certain people holding these views, and of course a controversy over the use of the term. See Radical feminism#Radical feminism and transgenderism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC).