For those who know Larry, the article is as accurate as the headline and is already being edited. The author's response on twitter AFTER the article was published:
Authorized Journalism in its highest form.
I got into 'hard' scifi back in my early 20's. I read all the 'professional' magazines and picked up all the 'quality' books. I stopped because most of them bored the hell out of me especially the Hugo Award winner collections. Because of that experience, I didn't even bother attending the awards when I went to Worldcon in '12. I knew that I not only wouldn't have read any of the works but likely wouldn't have heard about most of the authors. Reading more on what's been going on, this statement from one of those who pretty much controls the awards explains it clearly:
#499 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: March 29, 2015, 03:43 PM:If this were a debate on gun control, one would say the anti's were butthurt that a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cousin-humping rednecks dared opine on their consecrated echo chambers. Larry (afaik) coined the terms 'WrongFan's' having 'WrongFun' to satirize the above attitude toward those SF fans who aren't part of the 'elite'.
Why are people talking about what would happen if everyone who reads SF voted in the Hugos? IMO, it’s not a relevant question. The Hugos don’t belong to the set of all people who read the genre; they belong to the worldcon, and the people who attend and/or support it. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.
Update: EW has posted a 'correction' and an 'apology' but the article is still there. Amazing what the internet and the threat of lawyers can do.
Update II: Scalzi is butthurt: