Comments on: Microsoft Tries to Doctor Wikipedia http://fastwonderblog.com/2007/01/24/microsoft-tries-to-doctor-wikipedia/ Thoughts on online community strategy, community management, blogging, social media, Yahoo Pipes and open source. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:59:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: navaburo http://fastwonderblog.com/2007/01/24/microsoft-tries-to-doctor-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-519 navaburo Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:47:12 +0000 http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=269#comment-519 More information is available on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Office_Open_XML">Talk Page</a> for the Office Open XML article; just scroll down to the two sections on(/by?) Microsoft.<br /><br />Discussion there seems to focus on interpreting Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. An interesting read. More information is available on the Talk Page for the Office Open XML article; just scroll down to the two sections on(/by?) Microsoft.

Discussion there seems to focus on interpreting Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy. An interesting read.

]]> By: llywrch http://fastwonderblog.com/2007/01/24/microsoft-tries-to-doctor-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-518 llywrch Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:08:59 +0000 http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=269#comment-518 First, out of fairness to Microsoft (something that I never thought I would ever write) Jaliffe hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia -- he hasn't even accepted the contract (which he said would pay him for about 3 days of work). So far, all he has done is revealed that Microsoft has offered him the job & asked for feedback. <br /><br />The best Jaliffe could do now, if he accepted the work, is to write out his proposed drafts of the articles, but them up as temporary pages on Wikipedia & tell folks to copy over everything they could use. The Wikipedians who are interested in this subject are already preparing to revert that reads the least bit friendly to Microsoft.<br /><br />To Internet Esquire, two points:<br />(1) The material on the Conflict of Interest page is considered a <i>guideline</i>, not a rule. And it is still in flux -- which is why it may not make sense. If you don't understand it, feel free to post a question on the Talk page.<br /><br />(2) Say, someone posted in the comments section to your post the same link to their blog that they posted in the comments to <a href="http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/01/microsoft-pays-for-wikipedia-edits.html">my recent post</a> on this matter. Think someone is desperate for clicks? (Besides me, that is. :)<br /><br />Geoff First, out of fairness to Microsoft (something that I never thought I would ever write) Jaliffe hasn’t made any edits to Wikipedia — he hasn’t even accepted the contract (which he said would pay him for about 3 days of work). So far, all he has done is revealed that Microsoft has offered him the job & asked for feedback.

The best Jaliffe could do now, if he accepted the work, is to write out his proposed drafts of the articles, but them up as temporary pages on Wikipedia & tell folks to copy over everything they could use. The Wikipedians who are interested in this subject are already preparing to revert that reads the least bit friendly to Microsoft.

To Internet Esquire, two points:
(1) The material on the Conflict of Interest page is considered a guideline, not a rule. And it is still in flux — which is why it may not make sense. If you don’t understand it, feel free to post a question on the Talk page.

(2) Say, someone posted in the comments section to your post the same link to their blog that they posted in the comments to my recent post on this matter. Think someone is desperate for clicks? (Besides me, that is. :)

Geoff

]]> By: Internet Esquire http://fastwonderblog.com/2007/01/24/microsoft-tries-to-doctor-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-517 Internet Esquire Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:40:34 +0000 http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=269#comment-517 As I wrote in a <a href="http://blog.xodp.org/2007/01/this-wikipedia-article-brought-to-you.html">recent blog post</a>, I've never understood the logic behind Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, and this particular incident is reminiscent of the sort of humbug that one would expect from the faithful members of the Inner Party at ODP/dMOZ. Sure, there's a potential conflict of interest when someone is paid to contribute content to a website that is built primarily by volunteers, but it's rather naive for Wikipedians to assume that this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time. Indeed, the articles that Jelliffe was supposed to review and edit were allegedly written by people working for IBM. As I wrote in a recent blog post, I’ve never understood the logic behind Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules, and this particular incident is reminiscent of the sort of humbug that one would expect from the faithful members of the Inner Party at ODP/dMOZ. Sure, there’s a potential conflict of interest when someone is paid to contribute content to a website that is built primarily by volunteers, but it’s rather naive for Wikipedians to assume that this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time. Indeed, the articles that Jelliffe was supposed to review and edit were allegedly written by people working for IBM.

]]> By: ravenII http://fastwonderblog.com/2007/01/24/microsoft-tries-to-doctor-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-516 ravenII Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:51:24 +0000 http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=269#comment-516 what worries me is what we have not found out yet. <br />Ravenii what worries me is what we have not found out yet.
Ravenii

]]>