by pojo007
Yes, I agree with that. But because there's only one quote, without much context, it's very hard to evaluate. It's better than nothing.
I disagree completely and feel you're only arguing here to butt heads. If you didn't like the article, or didn't find it as informative as you wanted it to be, fine. But that's just your take. Attacking the writer here and offering up constructive critism that is nearly impossible for the writer to actually find constructive (ie, he talked to Cieslik and you didn't - how do you know what Cieslik was or wasn't willing to disclose?) is just a dick thing to do. Sorry.
He wrote a piece for Wired and I'm thankful of the read. It was informative to me because it addressed issues I didn't know from a perspective I hadn't seen before (Cieslik). As the writer stated, in the piece and here, Goko isn't offering up facts. Sometimes, sources aren't as resourceful as we'd like them to be. Sure, the writer could have asked 'harder' questions, or probed 'deeper,' but he didn't. And there's nothing wrong with that for this piece. Had he been writing for CNN, CSPAN, or any other larger-than-Wired publication out there, your 'demands' sound reasonable.
But coming here and insulting the writer because he didn't ask questions you wanted answered accomplishes nothing. Except establishing you as a tad demanding. And rude.