Microsoft tried to pay a writer to edit Wikipedia entries

[MercenaryForHire]

Crap related to 2003 > Linux article goes here

OH TEH NOES, M-DOLLAR-SIGN WAS ADVERTISING THEIR PRODUCT. EVIL CORPORATE EMPIRE CONSPIRACY CAPITALIST PIGS.

:roll:

- M4H

 

[andy04]

actually it aint that bad. Ofcource if you search for anything that is directly related to a company then obviously it will be biased. Its a very popular website and noone with money would like to see anything negetive about themselves. If you look for neutral stuff then its pretty good. Search for things like "Watergate", "Rotary Engine", "catamaran" and so no will give you pretty good articles.
Its like a fashion statement to hate misrosoft although one mostly is dumb enough not to even know what they are talking about, in this case MS has no choice but to step in and correct stuff. Windows is a H U G E product and there are bound to be flaws and noone will like only flaws highlighted

Originally posted by: Mucho
I wonder what percent or Wiki entries are spam?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Should the subject of a wiki article ever be authoring or editing it, even through a 3rd party? Especially when the article in question has anything to do with commercial interests?

 

[irishScott]

In my hopefully unbiased opinion, Microsoft's products generally suck from a programming/effectiveness/efficiency standpoint. They're just easier to use than the ones that do the job right. There are exceptions to the rule, but...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Should the subject of a wiki article ever be authoring or editing it, even through a 3rd party? Especially when the article in question has anything to do with commercial interests?

Sure, why not... again, as long as they remain objective.

And I'm sure MS has FAR more ability to remain objective than the anti-MS people out there who slander MS on a daily basis.

 

[KK]

since when is illegal to write a wikipedia entry? Who the fvck cares whats in wikipedia?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Should the subject of a wiki article ever be authoring or editing it, even through a 3rd party? Especially when the article in question has anything to do with commercial interests?

sure.

why should there be wrong information just because someone hates a company or such? why not be allowed to correct it?

 

[Platypus]

Wikipedia is a joke anyway, who cares what some kid in his basement thinks about topics? I can't count on one hand how many flat out biased and/or completely false things I've read on their site.

also they should use one of the third party wiki software packages out there cause their own product sucks terribly.. maybe they wouldn't need to buy 1000000000000 servers and raise donations if they could properly code.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: irishScott
In my hopefully unbiased opinion, Microsoft's products generally suck from a programming/effectiveness/efficiency standpoint. They're just easier to use than the ones that do the job right. There are exceptions to the rule, but...

Since their source code is closed to almost everyone, I'm curious how you've reached that conclusion.

 

[JS80]

I don't see anything wrong with what MSFT tried to do here.

 

[NaOH]

man just pulled up the steve ballmer wiki page. He sounds like an ass... :=/

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: irishScott
In my hopefully unbiased opinion, Microsoft's products generally suck from a programming/effectiveness/efficiency standpoint. They're just easier to use than the ones that do the job right. There are exceptions to the rule, but...

Yup, you did a good job in remaining unbiased :roll:

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: 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?

Maybe you should read my first post on this. I believe you are shifting the focus of the topic.

 

[erub]

Good for them, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[TheVrolok]

I fail to see the problem here? Wikipedia is a wiki .. MS wanted to make some of the pages discussing their technology more "accurate" which may included adding a bit of spin but hey, it's Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia Britanica, who cares? I'm not a very big fan of MS/Windows but I don't really see a problem here. It's business.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

And how does wikipedia "protect" itself from open-source developers who might potentially have biases towards their own software and against commercial alternatives?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

And how does wikipedia "protect" itself from open-source developers who might potentially have biases towards their own software and against commercial alternatives?

Is it a commercial interest?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

And how does wikipedia "protect" itself from open-source developers who might potentially have biases towards their own software and against commercial alternatives?

Is it a commercial interest?

Support means big bucks for OSS.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

And how does wikipedia "protect" itself from open-source developers who might potentially have biases towards their own software and against commercial alternatives?

Is it a commercial interest?

I don't see how that's relevant. Wikipedia's goal is to be a comprehensive reference site and to provide accurate and unbiased information through collaboration. The argument against Microsoft is that a corporation's commercial interests would interfere with its ability to contribute objective and accurate information.

My argument is that commercial interest is not the only threat to unbiased information. An open source developer can be just as likely to introduce bias into a technology article as a corporation, even if their reasons for bias are personal and not commercial.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Benefits analysis for wiki's neutrality standard:

the potential bias and harm of a commercial author far outweighs its insider knowledge, most of which wouldnt be released to the public anyway.

Wiki has this right, and Microsoft shouldn't have been tampering with that article. As the article sugests, there were indirect means to address alleged mistakes.

And how does wikipedia "protect" itself from open-source developers who might potentially have biases towards their own software and against commercial alternatives?

Is it a commercial interest?

I don't see how that's relevant. Wikipedia's goal is to be a comprehensive reference site and to provide accurate and unbiased information through collaboration. The argument against Microsoft is that a corporation's commercial interests would interfere with its ability to contribute objective and accurate information.

My argument is that commercial interest is not the only threat to unbiased information. An open source developer can be just as likely to introduce bias into a technology article as a corporation, even if their reasons for bias are personal and not commercial.

Then you've just constructed a compelling argument for why this type of subject should not be allowed to author or edit.

 

[Vic]

What I don't understand is why MS felt the need to have to pay someone when Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: irishScott
In my hopefully unbiased opinion, Microsoft's products generally suck from a programming/effectiveness/efficiency standpoint. They're just easier to use than the ones that do the job right. There are exceptions to the rule, but...

Since their source code is closed to almost everyone, I'm curious how you've reached that conclusion.

Basically due to observations of the application and similar applications. FF > IE, A number of antispyware options > Windows Defender, etc.

You don't need to look at the source code to know how an application performs.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: irishScott
In my hopefully unbiased opinion, Microsoft's products generally suck from a programming/effectiveness/efficiency standpoint. They're just easier to use than the ones that do the job right. There are exceptions to the rule, but...

Yup, you did a good job in remaining unbiased :roll:

So because I have an opinion, supported by facts, I'm bias? By that logic I'm bias that Core 2 Duo is better than a Pentium II