What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
155 Comments
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -33/+219Ok, I understand the knee-jerk reaction here is to hate MS, but what did they do wrong here? They see problems in the articles, they're not allowed to edit them directly, they ask for edits to happen to correct errors and they don't, so they get someone independent to do it. They had no editorial control and probably gave this guy all the info he needed. So, what's the problem?!
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -22/+143hey i play that game too. I'm a troll rogue what class are you? :)
- EmmSee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+68Articles in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Open_XML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument - fronkman, on 10/12/2007, -50/+114i still find it ironic that apple has to sue people to get them to STOP talking about their products and microsoft has to PAY people to say anything about theirs....
- NetLogic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58Why is is bad that they hired some one who is very knowable on the topic to go and fix things he finds? Not like the guy was working them and what not. Hell even stated he don't use MS products but only when needed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+54Wikiadmins and wikimods getting their wikipanties in a wikiwad? That's new.
- kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46A corporation surreptitiously manipulating open source references.....
Agreed, if Microsoft hired someone to edit the article into a rah-rah yay Microsoft fest it would be underhanded. But they didn't.
Instead they hired someone who is not very pro-Microsoft but a expert in document standards to remove the inaccuracies and the bias from the article. Having an unjustly biased and factually inaccurate article on wikipedia is not good for the readers or Wikipedia even if it assists someones fanboy agenda. But in itself this does not allude to any sort of malicious intent.
The only thing that bothered me is that I can see it setting a precedent for paid "auditors" monitoring specific articles turning into lobbyists who forget they are supposed to be making sure it's fair and accuract, not beneficial. - Netmindstorm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45And in other news, blogger hires other bloggers to continually undo his edits; subsequently submits report to MS that work is on going and will be so for the foreseeable future.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+46@aegis:
agreed, that would be a better way, but it doesn't mean that their way was wrong. - EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40@fronkman
1- How the hell can someone review a product unless they get their hands on it and
2- if a blogger can't take a freebie product and give a fair review of it, they are worthless and you shouldn't be listening to them.
Your just jealous that they didn't give you one.
And back to topic, MS hired someone to be a fair referee. They chose someone who, while not really liking them(MS), is at least an honest individual, knowledgeable about the product, and willing to try and make the posts accurate. - surfing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Shouldn't IBM be in the Wikipedia doghouse too?
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Exactly, they didnt (so far as the article states) ask him to make false statements, they just wanted the thing updated. If that had been the giant ***** that is steve jobs he would have spent 2m sueing him to get him to take it down.
Greets to the fanboys! - justnick, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32aegis -- that way is horrible way to correct it. I never read the discussion forums. I would take the article as fact or assume it is mostly right unless proved otherwise.
The fact is that Wikipedia failed. If Microsoft flags the innacuracies and the volunteers and editors of Wikioedia don't fix them that is Wikipedea failing in it's pledge for accuracy.
I don't like Microsoft either (I am a Linux fan) but I see nothing wrong with this as long as the info they were changing was wrong and the info they put in was accurate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Well, Microsoft only paid the blogger to update the content of the articles, it was up to the blogger to decide how and what to update.
- aegis9975, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36>>So, what's the problem?!
From the article:
"Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a "white paper" on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.
"It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way," Wales said." - MadScientist420, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21What???? Wikipedia entries might be inaccurate, fluffed, or slanted??? Say it ain't so!!!
- astatine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Lots of people talk about Microsoft products without being paid for it. It's just that a number of them are saying things that Microsoft don't want the general public to hear.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@ steelmaverick
"Wait....couldn't MS have simply edited the article THEMSELVES?! Why did they have to PAY someone else to do it?"
I just _know_ I'm going to get dugg down for this.
Because Wikipedia has this ***** policy that people and entities can't write their own articles or self-interest topics. For example, if I create say, a new network protocol standard from the ground up, I can't go to the Wikipedia and create a page on the topic or even correct incorrect information on the topic, despite the fact that I'm in the center of the standard. This also applies to autobiographies about people or companies.
The policy in itself isn't bad, it arouse out of the problem with people with huge ***** egos creating ***** pages about themselves. The problem is, Wikipedia, by its very design, has absolutely no mechanism in place to allow entities to create their own pages about themselves on Wikipedia. Talk or discussion pages are pointless and practically useless. Linking to outside pages is useless as well when you consider that anybody can host a page and put up whatever they want.
Most people who edit Wikipedia don't have the proper credentials to really generate content that is truly neutral. There is no doubt that they try and there are some very good pages on Wikipedia. But many pages just exist to serve the lowest common denominator of the common masses. If a large enough percentage of people believe in a particular theory, you'll see it there presented as fact.
Wikipedia is a good mechanism. But it only really works when everyone who uses it has an intimate understanding of what they write. When you throw armchair sleuths into the mix, things don't work out very well. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"The phrase "...to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles" doesn't exactly fill me with trust or confidence in the author's neutrality."
Yeah, and the person originally writing open source articles for Wikipedia was neutral? - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -24/+36>>>"So, what's the problem?!"
The problem is that Microsoft says that the articles are inaccurate. However, other people disagree with them (myself included). Who's to say who's correct? The standard is, in fact, vague and open to interpretation. There is no necessarily "right" answer here.
What's more, in every case, Microsoft was trying to remove what are basically criticisms of their "standard". They claim inaccuracy, but only so they won't be seen as trying to silence critics, which is what they are actually doing.
So really what's going on is that Microsoft tries to edit the articles to remove criticism, can't get away with it, and so tries to hire somebody *else* to do it so it doesn't look like they're trying to silence their critics.
That's what's wrong here. - Sundyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Probably should take of the wikiblinders. It was a wikijoke...
- Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If it was a fair revision, strictly technical, I see no reason for any corp NOT to hire people to edit THEIR products articles in order to better inform the public.
Of course you can't just remove any criticism and what not..., when you start slanting an article or editing competing products to look worse, thats when problems develop. - msikma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I agree with this. The articles I've read about this all state that Microsoft allegedly paid a blogger to edit articles "to their favor". But I'm not entirely sure whether that's the case. The person they asked to do this is a non-Microsoft person and actually clearly has a problem with their typical FUD. It could very well be that one of their better higher-ups decided to get someone to make genuinely well-written articles about both formats.
Of course, I think that they shouldn't have tried to do this in any case, since obviously Microsoft's edits are never going to be (seen as) neutral. It was pretty stupid of them to even try. - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I agree. I don't see a problem. I'm about as rabid anti-microsoft, pro-OSS as it gets, but I'm STILL with Microsoft on this one. When I read the original article I thought that their approach was remarkably sensible. An independent third party who is not at all pro-Microsoft but *is* an expert in the field being paid for his time. Good quality, properly researched, properly referenced (ie: with citations for all sources) academic writing is difficult and time consuming, even if you're already an expert in the field. Some of the stuff I'm writing right now is landing on the page at the rate of 50-75 words PER HOUR because it takes that much time to make 100% sure that I've got all my facts (ducks?) in a row. No-one works that hard for free (and before all y'all jump in with "But OSS developers do" I'll say that's *exactly* what I'm writing about at the moment, and they don't). In any case, if his work is properly researched and sources are properly cited then it stands on its own regardless of who funded it. Lets hold the rock-throwing until we've seen the output please.
I've often suspected that Wales might be a recreational crack smoker... if he really gave that interview (and you can never be 100% sure that he didn't, or that the journaliar just made it up), then last night must have been one of those 'recreation' nights for him.
Oh, and the troll who is working through the bottom half of the comments section on this article and downmodding all the pro-Microsoft commentary: grow up already. - wyattearp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@astatine
yes, that's what they are doing. if you'd actually read Digg on a fairly consistent basis, you'd see that the blogger in question wrote an article about MS contacting him to edit the entry for correctness of the standards in wikiepdia the other day. the blogger is a respected member of the ISO committee. get a clue, do some research on your own before being a media monkey. - OddTSi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Exactly.
What I find interesting is that a lot of people posting here seem to think that only MS is capable of editing the article to be biased in their favor. Has no one stopped to think that with the rampant MS hatred in some on-line communities that it's possible that the article in question is biased against MS and in favor of ODF? - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So open source advocates get to write a slanted article and there's no way MS can give any input. Yep, Wikipedia is broken by design.
FTA
"Brooker said Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia.
Brooker said Microsoft believed that having an independent source would be key in getting the changes to stick -- that is, to not have them just overruled by other Wikipedia writers.
Brooker said Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not determined a price and no money had changed hands -- but they had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission. Brooker said Microsoft had never previously hired someone to influence a Wikipedia article." - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Otto: You haven't even seen what the changes would have been, so how can you make that assumption? At least let the guy they hired make the changes and *then* decide whether or not you think they're biased.
- Malshew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you read the article it points out that Microsoft repeatedly tried to get the admins to change it.
It also points out that there was a condition in which they would pay him the money and have him post the corrections before even reading it. - Malshew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This is the problem with wikipedia when it comes to a subject that is still alive, breathing, and can easily be slanted.
- Sanchez, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12"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."
So where the hell is the problem, Microsoft haven't done anything wrong here. - Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"So why did Microsoft tell CNN they DID have something to do with it?"
Because Microsoft are honest. - 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There I go again? Yeah, shame on me for telling the truth. I guess what I said is like saying global warming exists over on Free Republic.
- LurkerSteve2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10'The articles I've read about this all state that Microsoft allegedly paid a blogger to edit articles "to their favor"'
Yes, but those articles were paid for by Apple. - Malshew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There is a reason why most political topics (and entries related to elephants) are locked. Wikipedia, by its very nature, is an unreliable, biased source of information. I still find it useful for things within CS algorithms, or even history, but if it is a highly debated topic today you have to take the information with a grain of salt.
- JanethD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I agree with everyone saying Microsoft did not do anything wrong. They were only asking for an outside source to edit the article and did not tell the source what to say or what not to say.
- Bender4Pharoah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Once again proving you can't trust WIKIPEDIA.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So why did Microsoft tell CNN they DID have something to do with it?
"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." - CNN - NetLogic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think it's better they got some one who is an open standard guy then doing it on their own.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13The FOSS movement uses Wikipedia as a staging point for its propaganda. Thus the reason Microsoft hired someone to make the articles accurate instead of the biased and innacurate crap that the FOSS movement posts all over the web.
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I fail to see what is wrong with this? If anything it points out problems with wikipedia. What if microsoft's changes were more accurate or did fix mistakes? If the changes were for the better it shows how wikipedia has a huge bias by editors with the most control.
- mikaelc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Does your local library have many books about OOXML?
Wikipedia, biased or not, is a valuable source of knowledge and external references. - sepherenia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Malshew
Sorry, but this argument has always bewildered me. Exactly what information *shouldn't* one take with a grain of salt? Wikipedia is no different to any other source (except that some articles are prone to (usually obvious) vandalism) in that you have to question what you read and not blindly believe what's said. - br0ck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7According to the guy that started this, Microsoft had nothing to do with it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218248&cid=17724650 - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Justnick said: "aegis -- that way is horrible way to correct it. I never read the discussion forums. I would take the article as fact or assume it is mostly right unless proved otherwise."
No, actually that is the *ideal* way to correct it. As an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, I understand that the Talk pages associated with the articles are the best place to discuss proposed changes to articles. Putting the White Paper link on the article's Talk page is therefore the best place for the article contributors to debate it and then make the necessary corrections. - xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FTA: No money changed hands yet. So... nothing.
- dilbertmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Correction: He was not paid (yet)! FTA:
"Brooker said Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not determined a price and no money had changed hands..." - trer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Geez, from the title it sounded like Microsoft was about to be served a lawsuit sandwich. But since when did being in Wikipedia's "doghouse" become synonymous with being in "hot water"?
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't see the problem with this. I mean, Wikipedia is editable by anyone. That's the point. I would also think that Microsoft went about this in a good way. They got a guy who wasn't a regular employee, and were only going to pay him for his time...and they weren't going to edit whatever changes he decided to make. What is the big problem?
- kingace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The blogger who was paid... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Jelliffe
-
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is