Wikipedia articles provide an abundance of informal cues that other media lack, cues that can seem unprofessional on first glance. For example, the USA Today article's main image shows (without adjacent comment) the paper's "Miners Survive!" headline gaffe. Since the pupose of the picture is to illustrate the paper, platonically, wouldn't a more neutral photo be better? Yes, but I'm not about to shoot one -- which is precisely the point: nobody cares much about USA Today; it doesn't have any advocates."
USA Today doesn't have any serious detractors, either, so the pic will probably change within a year. (If it was at the center of a controversy it wouldn't have lasted a day.) This type of informal information bubbles up all over. Warren and Livonia are both suburbs of Detroit, but Livonians don't think of themselves that way.
(Sure enough, the USA today pic has changed.)