OSNews

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia; however, unlike an actual encyclopedia, there isn't a whole lot of "fact-checking" by objective sources. Anyone can contribute. And, in this case, "anyone" includes people with partisan agendas who are using Wikipedia as an advertising platform to promote their favorite file format and tear down competing formats.

And yet, when a study was done to compare Wikipedia to Brittanica, the results were that Wikipedia was only sligthly less accurate than the venerable Brittanica, which means that the "peer review" system used by Wikipedia gives surprisingly good results.

While anyone with a partisan agenda can promote whatever they want, articles with a strong POV will be corrected by the user community - which is why MS should trust the user community to fix any errors in the OOXML pages. Of course, not everything is going to conform to MS's viewpoint, but that's to be expected.

I do think that the OOXML pages should be as objective as possible, and therefore *if* they are inaccurate they should be corrected. I do think, however, that MS brought any opposition on themselves by playing politics with file formats in the first place.

No, they're actually doing something quite worse: They're spreading disinformation in an online publication that IS supposed to be neutral.

Again, do you have proof of that? And if you do, why haven't you done your part in correcting the actual disinformation?

What MS is trying to do is bring some reasonable objectivity to technical discussions involving its technologies. And it seems like they tried to hire a pretty objective guy, by all appearances. Again, I see nothing wrong with the truth.

They don't have to hire anyone. If the objective guy is already a contributor to Wikipedia, he can simply correct the inaccuracies as he sees them. Giving money to someone immediately introduces questions of conflict of interest.

It appears now that this was in fact not a decision by MS' management, but rather by someone working on the OOXML team. He probably meant well, but he had to know what kind of reaction this would provoke (which is why MS management would have never done something like this in the first place, at least not overtly).

I disagree. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain fact, not fiction. Fact is objective. It doesn't take sides.

You should discuss the impossibility of being totally objective with Cloudy... ;-)

Again, I am all in favor of someone cleaning up the OOXML pages if they are inaccurate. I do think, however, that it should be a neutral third party who is not on anyone's payroll. That's the only way to keep the impression of relative impartiality.

I disagree. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain fact, not fiction. Fact is objective. It doesn't take sides.

You should discuss the impossibility of being totally objective with Cloudy... ;-)

You called?

It's impossible to be reasonably objective in most instances. Total objectivity is only accomplished through carefully controlled scientific experiment.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia; however, unlike an actual encyclopedia, there isn't a whole lot of "fact-checking" by objective sources.

Have you actually seen Wikipedia lately? Because I have seen many, many articles that are tagged with notices like "this article lacks the formal style required of an encyclopedia" or "this article is not written from a neutral POV". Wikipedia is self-correcting, that's why people use it.

Anyone can contribute. And, in this case, "anyone" includes people with partisan agendas who are using Wikipedia as an advertising platform to promote their favorite file format and tear down competing formats.

Yes, like Microsoft (or its hired guns). And please, don't bother trying to tell me that neither group has an agenda. You'll only continue to make an ass of yourself.

Wrong. Clearly, even with all its financial resources, MS is frustrated by how its opponents are using popular websites to spread FUD about its technologies. MS can't modify Wikipedia, itself, without being heavily criticized. So what did it do? It sought out a relatively objective third party to evaluate the Wiki OOXML documentation for errors. I don't see any problem with that. It's not like they paid some ideologically-driven hired gun.

Why couldn't Microsoft just ask its staff (or "some relatively objective third party" to contribute as a volunteer? It's the money that's the problem. Clearly, people will do things for money that they would never do as a volunteer. Take me, for instance: I'll suffer Windows as long as I'm paid to do it (assuming I can't junk it for Linux due to company policy, of course).

BS. Nobody is trying to "freeze out" anybody's opinion. What MS is trying to do is bring some reasonable objectivity to technical discussions involving its technologies. And it seems like they tried to hire a pretty objective guy, by all appearances. Again, I see nothing wrong with the truth.

The problem is that they hired someone instead of asking him, or anyone else, to work as a volunteer - which everyone else on Wikipedia does. Do you enjoy missing the point? Don't try to tell me that Microsoft is some benevolent corporation, bucko, because I know different from experience.

I disagree. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain fact, not fiction. Fact is objective. It doesn't take sides.

Which is exactly what I said. No corporation is going to pay good money to get someone to write something "objective"about it.

Oh, I see. So that must be why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are unencrypted formats, then... /sarcasm

I see nothing in my post about HDDVD or Bluray, only music, which unlike movies is now commonly legally distributed via the web, to own. And if the makers of the technology realise that one of the problems with HDDVD and Bluray, (which is resulting, as the BBC reports, in no-one buying it), is DRM, then they will fast change their tune too.