Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 23:27 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Microsoft "So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML. I am hardly the poster boy of Microsoft partisanship! Apparently they are frustrated at the amount of spin from some ODF stakeholders on Wikipedia and blogs. I think I'll accept it: FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see." So basically, it seems as if Microsoft is trying to 'hire' people to edit Wikipedia.
Thread beginning with comment 204672
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Unethical
by smashIt on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "Unethical"
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

3. Microsoft has many reasons to hate the Wikipedia; for instance, the Wikipedia is a Free-Software project promoting Free content, and Microsoft is promoting a very different information model (what they call "Intellectual Property").

the computer-section of wikipedia is a huge oss/linux advertisement. and if ms is willing to pay someone to change this, I'm the last one to stop them

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Unethical
by GhePeU on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 00:47 in reply to "RE: Unethical"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

Bullshits. "Microsoft", "Windows 2000", "Windows XP", "Architecture of Windows NT", "Microsoft Data Access Components" are featured articles, documented and neutral, and many of them went in the Main Page in the last months.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Unethical
by twenex on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 05:58 in reply to "RE: Unethical"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

the computer-section of wikipedia is a huge oss/linux advertisement. and if ms is willing to pay someone to change this, I'm the last one to stop them

The computer section of Wikipedia also has plenty of information on computer architecture, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, SPARC, VMS, other obscure and bygone platforms of yesterday, and things that Microsoft pretend that WNT is (microkernels and secure operating systems).

If an encyclopedia turns out not to be a huge advertisement for Microsoft, how is that anyone but Microsoft's problem?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Unethical
by Moochman on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 17:28 in reply to "RE: Unethical"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

the computer-section of wikipedia is a huge oss/linux advertisement.

Uh, no. See, the word "advertisement" means someone is paying for it....

Wikipedia "endorses" FOSS simply because those are the types of people who tend to write the articles. This is no coincidence; as the above post alludes to, there is a great deal of ideology shared between free software and community-created content. Both are fueled by a groundswell of people who are driven more often than not by passion rather than money....

There's a big difference between people writing what they feel out of passion for/belief in the free flow of information, and Microsoft *paying* people to support MS on Wikipedia, which is essentially corporate-sponsored advertising in the traditional sense, except without the disclaimer anywhere that we are viewing an advertisement. Which is an incredibly decietful, underhanded and despicable tactic.

As Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of its user-base and not some corporate sponsor, they should really be making an attempt to discover such abuse and crack down on it, just as they have cracked down on vandalism.

Sometimes I get the feeling there's a bizarre sort of reality-distortion-field around Microsoft, whereby their consistent immoral behavior is taken for granted to such an extent that people come up with rationalizations just to be able to believe that Microsoft "isn't really that evil." And yet, as in this case, we are shown time and time again that, actually, they are.

Or maybe we're just tricked by the consistent presence of the aforementioned MS-payed forum trolls, you never know.

(Btw, it's occured to me that they could easily pay a bunch of different trolls to post comments and simultaneously mod their fellow trolls up up. It's nice to know I'll never be able to trust a single thing I read on any community site now because I'll never know if it's just the work of the MS trolls.)

Edited 2007-01-23 17:41

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Unethical
by looncraz on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 19:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Unethical"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Sure you know who you can trust... anyone that is at least using correct logic to explain their points.

It shouldn't matter what you are told, you should go out and try to find the truth if it matters that much to you.

MS hiring people to work on Wikipedia is not illegal or even unethical by itself. However, should they censor or edit the content to fit an advertising image, then it is unethical as Wikipedia *IS* an encyclopedia that should reflect the real truths of the world, without censorship or omission.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Unethical
by dylansmrjones on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 17:57 in reply to "RE: Unethical"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Do you have any example on this "huge oss/linux advertisement"?

People could just as easily claim Wikipedia's computer section is one big MS commercial.

Personally it's my opinion that the information is generally quite neutral and correct. But perhaps you are hinting at the many Wikipedia articles about OSS/Linux? In that case you ought to read all the articles about proprietary software solutions. I think you've forgotten those.

Reply Parent Score: 3