I really do not understand the point of view of Wikipedia, nor the very biased author of this silly little article: "Microsoft in hot water over Wikipedia edits"


Let me summarize what I conclude after reading it:

1. Microsoft, alone, is not allowed to have anyone review or manage content on WikiPedia.  Even if this person is an independant expert on the subject.  Paid, or unpaid.

2. IBM is allowed to have content updated as they please, and pay people to do it, seemingly because they support Open Source software in a larger fashion than MSFT. So I guess that just makes them better?

3. Microsoft's only course of action in order to have any sort of content on Wikipedia updated is to create a slew of whitepapers which address each issue and to link into the Wikipedia and hope that the people at Wikipedia or even IBM review the whitepapers, and update the content for them.  They are not allowed to tell Wikipedia about it, because they will just be ignored.

As long as Rick Jelliffe didnt post an ad up for Vista (Buy it now!) then isnt the whole purpose of Wikipedia to be a collaborative project?  Why is MSFT being singled out here? 

The headline should read: "Wikepedia sells out to IBM and refuses to let Microsoft contribute" or "Until Microsoft releases all of its source code they have to go sit in the WikiCorner"

2 Comments

• JosephCooney said Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:46:03 PM

  I don't get it either - clearly my moral compass is completely broken because I don't see a problem with Microsoft seeking the paid opinion of a 3rd party expert. They did not seek to conceal the arrangement (and even encouraged said expert to disclose it on their blog) and did not seek to control or editorialize the expert's views.

• Uwe said Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:55:11 PM

  In the past, I often got the feelings that the moron advocates that previously acted on the USENET now moved on and founded Wikipedia to have a modern way to humiliate the contributors and other users of Wikipedia.