Microsoft tried to pay a writer to edit Wikipedia entries

[TheAdvocate]

Text

I find the rationale to be part of a disturbing trend - they obvioucly knew what they were doing was wrong, but tried to create enough of an apparent arms length transaction to avoid implications of impropriety.


Maybe I'm just getting jaded as I get older - but it just appears that our society is hell bent on rationalizing whatever it wants to do, finding a loophole to do it, and then feeling entitled to do so because the loophole exists and/or there's enough money to make the problem go away.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Obligatory:

"Well, that's because Wikipedia is made/run/maintained/edited by nerds/losers/Linux users from their mother's basement between dungeon runs in WoW, so no wonder anything pro-Microsoft got edited out."

- M4H

 

[EKKC]

which entries in particular?

 

[Bootprint]

Not much different then when US Rep Marty Meehan's staff change his wiki entries.

 

[MrChad]

Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft.

Spokeswoman Catherine Brooker said she believed the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp., which is a big supporter of the open-source standard. IBM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

I'm not sure I see what the problem is here.

When it comes to technology articles, wouldn't it be better to have an expert from Microsoft (perhaps a developer) explain a bit of Microsoft technology rather than someone who's read a few articles about it online? You can be sure that open source developers are contributing to articles relating to their technology, so why can't Microsoft?

Wikipedia is a self-policing environment anyway, so the author in question would be unable to get away with marketing spin or inaccuracies.

 

[ElFenix]

it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles

Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe

Jelliffe, who is chief technical officer of a computing company based in Australia

good job CNN, make it sound like he's just some random guy on the intarweb, and then explain that he may have some clue of what he is doing

 

[MrChad]

Article in question?

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Obligatory:

"Well, that's because Wikipedia is made/run/maintained/edited by nerds/losers/Linux users from their mother's basement between dungeon runs in WoW, so no wonder anything pro-Microsoft got edited out."

- M4H

AMEN Brother - the weird part is that 90% of them would be running windows and using IE while they do it... Loosers

 

[waggy]

Depends on what they edited. but if it is something really wrong they were correcting then fine.

 

[zoiks]

Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

 

[Amused]

I don't see a problem here as long as they stay objective. Nothing disturbing here at all.

There is a LOT of bias on Wikipedia. Political articles are the worst offenders. And then you have political correctness/anti-capitalist assasinations like Microsoft's article.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: zoiks
Technology companies pull stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Fixed for you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: zoiks
Companies from all industries pull stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article. I felt like a fool because at the top of each page it said "Advertisement"

Fixed for you.

Fixed again

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

All full page advertisements say "ADVERTISEMENT" at the top of the page. Especially multi-page ads that resemble articles.

 

[MangoTBG]

As long as the information that they entered was in fact true, then why does this matter? Hasn't the mentality of Wikipedia been "for us, by us" (note, i realize this is both FUBU and also not anything officially associated with Wikipedia...I'm just saying the mentality of it)? Since when did that include or exclude certain people?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

LOLOLOL... he can't help it, he's only human. I can think of a few books that I'd like to slap "advertisement" on every page, begining with the best seller of all time.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

All full page advertisements say "ADVERTISEMENT" at the top of the page. Especially multi-page ads that resemble articles.

As I said, I did NOT see that in 'ADVERTISEMENT'.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

err. i won't call you stupid or an idiot. but comon it had a MS logo on each page and that didn't tip you off?

sheesh.

 

[Mucho]

I wonder what percent or Wiki entries are spam?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

All full page advertisements say "ADVERTISEMENT" at the top of the page. Especially multi-page ads that resemble articles.

As I said, I did NOT see that in 'ADVERTISEMENT'.

It's not MS's fault you didn't see it, because I can guarantee it was there.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

err. i won't call you stupid or an idiot. but comon it had a MS logo on each page and that didn't tip you off?

sheesh.

Like I said, I attributed that to the article. Perhaps it was a overlook on my part but thats not to say that the ad did not look like an article. It did and its just one of the tactics companies use to dupe readers.

 

[Tobolo]

nice

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zoiks
Microsoft pulls stuff like this all the time. I remember seeing an large article in a computer magazine that showed how much superior Windows really was to Linux. At the end I found out that the 'article' was actually a 10 page ad that was meant to look like an full fledged article.

Because you were too stupid to see the "advertisement" notification at the top of each page?

It wasn't that evident at all. It did have a Microsoft logo on each page in the corner but I attributed that to the article itself.

By the way, do you really judge people this quickly?

err. i won't call you stupid or an idiot. but comon it had a MS logo on each page and that didn't tip you off?

sheesh.

Like I said, I attributed that to the article. Perhaps it was a overlook on my part but thats not to say that the ad did not look like an article. It did and its just one of the tactics companies use to dupe readers.

and how is that Microsoft's fault again?