The interviews with former WikiTrib journalists are what does it for me, especially the one or two who speak on record (I really don't like off-the-record sources). I am assuming the basic history is correct, but that's where I don't recall the history myself to speak to that. Beyond that, it's these two quotes that have me believing this is a solid and accurate story: _“For the general public [collaborating to WikiTribune] it's hard to do reporting – and for no money, which is a big ask,” Bale says._ _“Jimmy’s frame of reference about journalism is that it’s easy, it’s just a nice turn of phrase,” Peter Bale says._ Yup. Big corporations make two distinct and incorrect assumptions: 1) that average people care more than they do and 2) that writing journalism is easy enough so that the average person really doesn't need training.

A particularly egregious example of navel-gazing, in this instance with regard to journalism. I almost labeled this as satire but decided upon surface level because well, it's a superficial look at one individual's effort to redefine, so to speak, journalism. Whenever the words "professional journalist" are mentioned the reader would be wise to recall the inimitable Samuel Langhorne Clemens on the subject: "I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the thunders of prophecy." - Mark Twain Without offering a personal opinion, it has been much discussed over the many preceding decades that once journalism, or rather, reporting, which may more accurately describe the work, became something to profit from as a business the bell of its decline began to toll. Additionally, many scholars have expressed doubts as to the actual "profession" of journalism. Arguing that the very concept of a journalist class, if you will, is legally irrelevant and in direct opposition to the Constitution, which makes every citizen a journalist in equal standing. Not a worthwhile read. Unless of course, one finds it interesting and informative to hear some individuals caterwaul over the course of nearly two thousand words about something specific and problematic only to themselves. The outlet (full disclosure: I have been a subscriber since 1997, it was founded in 1993, and used to be referred to as the 'Rolling Stone' of technology) has fallen far, strayed significantly from its roots, and frankly speaking, is barely worth reading anymore. In some circles this type of article would be considered just one of many reasons for the magazine's decline. All that being said, I trust that the reader will forgive any perceived editorializing, which if present, was unintended and hopefully find this review useful.