Talk:MIT Technology Review

message: User:Dpbsmith has put a lot of effort into recent edits on this entry, but unfortunately the resulting article seems to be primarily an attack against the quality, marketing, and intentions of Technology Review, focusing especially on arguing that it's not as closely connected to MIT as people might think.  These edits were precipitated by a mini edit-war on the main MIT article on whether or not Technology Review qualified as MIT's alumni magazine. This entry needs to be overhauled in a big way to present a more balanced POV.
Another related point is that I'd be more comfortable if newspaper references on Wikipedia all contained links to archived versions of those papers so that someone could easily verify the accuracy and full context of quotes. -- BrassRat 09:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Subject line says all. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you think now?

message: ...no time to do more on this right now. Anyone with good ideas, edit away.
"Postmodern," "Modern," and "Historical?" Nope.
"Nascent," "Classic," and "Historical?" Uh-uh.
Dpbsmith (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I guess "modern" and "historical" won't work any more... 

message: I don't know when I'll get around to it, but, yes, the references need to be converted to the new format, and, yes, someone needs to figure out how best to organize the article. Probably the lead should briefly describe the current magazine, and the sections should be placed in historical order: the "historical" magazine, the Bruce Journey era, and the post-Journey magazine. Or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs reorganizing 

message: On October 22, 2013 Technology Review produced a damning article on The Decline of Wikipedia which, in my POV, was riddled with POV.  I tried to find a mechanism to give feedback to MIT but their website only offerded contact options for such things as admission.  Equivalent feedback and correction mechanisms, as are instantly available on Wikipedia, were not evident.  I am just wondering whether this is worth a write up.  Gregkaye (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worth adding to this article.  This is not an encylopedic issue.  You would also have to find at least one reliable, secondary source to add it, or the addition would be original research, which not allowed here on Wikipedia. — Lentower (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor quality of feedback options on TR's web site

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MIT Technology Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041210220920/http://www.textfiles.com:80/humor/woolly_m.amm to http://www.textfiles.com/humor/woolly_m.amm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051017042334/http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/index.cfm to http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MIT Technology Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130430204955/http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/CorpSearchSummary.asp?ReadFromDB=True&UpdateAllowed=&FEIN=000803209 to http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/CorpSearchSummary.asp?ReadFromDB=True&UpdateAllowed=&FEIN=000803209
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on MIT Technology Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://searchpdffiles.com/asme-announces-national-magazine-award-finalists
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819210401/http://www.magazine.org/editorial/about_asme/press_releases/15958.cfm to http://www.magazine.org/editorial/about_asme/press_releases/15958.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310034601/http://www.magazine.org/Press_Room/MPA_Press_Releases/21308.cfm to http://www.magazine.org/Press_Room/MPA_Press_Releases/21308.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302235851/http://www.magazine.org/Press_Room/MPA_Press_Releases/26272.cfm to http://www.magazine.org/Press_Room/MPA_Press_Releases/26272.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey all.
My goal is to reduce the confusion of reading an MIT Technology Review article and mistaking it for a peer reviewed paper.
The current page states the fact that they are published by MIT, with only a link to MIT Technology Review's homepage.
This proposed edit provides the same wording as what is on their about-page, "Our coverage is independent of any influence, including our ownership by MIT," with the citation linking directly to the source text.
Original                                                                                   	Proposed 1                                                                                                            	Proposed 2
MIT Technology Review is a magazine published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.	MIT Technology Review is a magazine published by but not influenced or owned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology.	MIT Technology Review is a magazine published by, but not owned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Does anyone contest to this change?
--Tsangares (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change the first sentence. 

message: Does it make sense to have the yearly list of 10 breakthrough innovations? Simsong (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a list of the 10 breakthrough innovations each year? 

message: I am writing an article on the history of MIT Technology Review for MIT Technology Review. (I am not an employee of MIT Technology Review, but I do freelance for the publication.) I have references from the publication regarding its editors. Typically such lists of editors are considered to be encyclopedic. 
I am happy to add them to this article, but don't want to do so without the sense of the community being in favor of my doing so, since I am involved with the publication. On the other hand, if I do not do it, it is doubtful that anyone else will.
Simsong (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I add a list of editors of this publication?