oreillynet.com — From Rick Jelliffe's Blog:"So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML."
Jan 22, 2007 View in Crawl 4
curthowlandJan 23, 2007
What worries me is not that MS would hire someone openly (which is a very good thing to do IMHO) to fix the entry on _their_ specification, the worry is that MS would hire someone to alter _someone_else's_ specification entry.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2007
@JeffH"OMG. Microsoft hired a balanced, neutral party to professionally edit Wikipedia!!!"He is no longer balanced and neutral if he is getting paid money to do it.Theres nothing stopping MS from declaring a 'neutral' party then throwing in a little extra money behind the scenes if the article is favorable to them.Its hard to tell if MS's recent actions of love and peace towards the OS community (Novel, Wikipedia, LinuxOnZune) are a real attempt or just a way to position them selves to shove a knife in the back (ie find a patent infringement on something stupidly insignificant like font anti-aliasing and sue, or just sue heaps of developers and hope that lots are too poor and just give up rather than fight a lawsuit with the $60billion company), or more likely a slower absorption of the OS community. Even if there intentions are at least partially legitimate chances are there never going to be perceived as such and would probably give up and ditch the friendly attitude. Personally i think its just a bunch of PR stunts, they haven't really done anything that I would consider a real tangible attempt, the only thing I can think of was agreeing to allow Windows to Virtualize under Linux rather than just the other way around, which they only agreed to after a lot of pressure from Novel, and i wouldn't be surprised if they manager to screw it up in some minor but significant way.
phearceJan 23, 2007
Astroturfing is bad enough in the real world, but has serious implications on the web since it's much more difficult to determine a person (or web site's) sincerity. The point here is that Microsoft is (remarkably) doing something somewhat the opposite of astroturfing -- they're hiring an expert to weigh in on a matter. On Wikipedia no less. Granted, they're going to seek out an expert that's sympathetic to their side of the issue, but wouldn't you do the same? Plus, they didn't require a non-disclosure agreement -- that indicates they didn't feel they had anything to hide.
wahoneJan 23, 2007
Just don't think articles should be edited they should stand as they are flaws and all
echoicJan 24, 2007
Break out the tinfoil hats! Nutter
obkenobiJan 24, 2007
[quote]This is just the tip of the iceberg. Microsoft shills are attacking me. [/quote]This is why we need the names listed of those that are Digging down our comments.I have a good idea of which ones will turn up already.You Microsoft scumbags think you can stop us? We will fight you on Digg, in the forums, and on Usenet, in the press, and the seas. We shall fight you on the desktop, and in the tubes, in the offices, and the parents' basements. We shall never rest until your foul scourge is gone from the Earth.Listen, Shestowitz isn't exaggerating. Microsoft DOES employ astroturfers. They are hired not directly by MS, but by one of MS's several PR agencies. MS has been sending false "studies" all over the place for years. MS makes backroom deals the same way broadband monopolists do. Do you really think it's below them to spread propaganda on forums and attempt to stifle dissent?When someone posts that Vista's DRM runs continuously and uses extra CPU cycles (a fact!) and this is Dugg down by about 10 people, you should wonder if it's just out of ignorance, or if it's MS fanboys and shills doing it. They are desperate from having the FACTS about Vista's DRM (AKA Trusted Computing) reach the public. If the public knew those facts, I doubt they would be very eager to "upgrade."
ampalayanutJan 26, 2007
Paying someone to correct "errors" in Wiki just does not seem right. I thought this article perhaps explained Wiki's position best:<a class="user" href="http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007012401426NWMSSW">http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007012401426NWMSSW</a>> "Microsoft landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change> technical articles on the community-produced encyclopedia site.>> "Although Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy> Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-> relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of> interest from posting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is a definite no-no..." IMHO, Microsoft's action is similar to a sports team paying an umpire additional to ensure a fair game.
naio21Feb 1, 2007
Schestofartz: did you intend to show Linux's copy-and-paste capabilities with this post?Moron.