[kwlug disc.] Microsoft in trouble for wanting Wikipedia edits

[Chris Bruner]

I don't know. They were perceived as having a bias towards their own 
products, so weren't allowed to write about them. They paid someone else 
to review the product and then write about it in Wikipedia.

I was feeling that MS was only trying to defend itself from what it 
viewed as unfair criticisms. However, at the end of 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 website and then link to it in the 
Wikipedia articles' discussion forums."

In otherwords, MS had the ability to rebuff the criticisms, just not as 
directly as they would have liked. 

Wikipedia doesn't allow fluff pieces with an obvious bias. MS believed 
that the criticisms were written by IBM. Sounds like Wikipedia get's to 
be judge and jury on their own site, and ruled that the original 
articles didn't have an obvious  bias.

Chris


Rick wrote:
> Can't tell if Microsoft is really the bad guy in this situation.
> Anyway, is good to know people are keeping vigil.
>
> Microsoft catches heat over offer to pay for Wikipedia edit
> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/23/tech-microsoftwikipedia-20070123.html
> _______________________________________________
> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>
>