To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm sure MS zealots do this all the time, so this situation has no practical difference to Wikipedia.
Monopoly money influencing a peer production process of communication intended for the public is not something to shrug over.
Wikipedia has already been found* to have a certain level of inaccuracy, comparable to Encarta. Fixing the mistakes itself is a process prone to bias, and money could simply prioritize which mistakes get corrected first. There are many ways money could corrupt the process other than involving just the simple notion of correcting a mistake in and of itself. We must all fight against the naivete over money -- and language for that matter. Hence the phrase, money talks.
(*) http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?+id=z6xht2rj60kqmsl8tlq5ltqcs...
I'm not saying that is acceptable or at least meaningless.
My point was simply that this degree of lobbying IMHO can be balanced by the nature of Wikipedia (every user can question articles) in opposition to other reference publications where you can't change or challenge the information, and that this is (I assume) happening all along (FUD entering the articles that is).
"money could simply prioritize which mistakes get corrected first"
This is true. But the last word is always with Wikipedia users. In here, how many people would accept this offer from MS?




Member since:
2006-01-16
Seriously, what's the difference between a fanboy posting and this situation?
Getting paid to do it.
I'm sure MS zealots do this all the time, so this situation has no practical difference to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia aims at providing information which is properly sourced, so hopefully there's not much room for FUD.
All systems open to user content are vulnerable to lobbying, but I think that overall the Wikipedia project works very well.