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

[Unsolicited]

 > Hmm.. then with the vendor-posting rule in mind, it seems that
 > Microsoft just didn't do their homework.

Correct. Or rather, didn't like the path required of them, and 
sought to bypass it.

 > Doesn't MS have a department for this sort of thing? 
Employees on all

Of course. But vendor employees are not allowed to post to 
wikipedia. Bias and all those other things.

Had those internal employees written something, and wikipedia 
discovered that they were internal MS employees, wikipedia likely 
would have just deleted all those entries out of hand.

It's the seeking to bypass the path required of them that has 
landed MS in hot water.

Sy Ali wrote, On 1/24/2007 6:45 PM:
> On 1/24/07, Unsolicited <unsolicited at gto.net> wrote:
>> Sy wrote:
>>  > They want the information presented, especially the technical
>>  > information, to be as accurate as possible.  They care enough that
>>  > they're willing to pay people to take the time to keep articles
>>  > up-to-date, write well, cite sources and contribute to the
>> Wikipedia.
>>  > More companies should take this route.
>>
>> I don't agree, at least not strictly. The rules for vendors not
>> posting / protection for bias seem to me to be there for good
>> reason. Especially to remove to as great extent as possible any
>> 'spin'ning.
> 
> Hmm.. then with the vendor-posting rule in mind, it seems that
> Microsoft just didn't do their homework.  Like other vendors, they
> should have just quietly had an internal person do some writing during
> their work day.
> 
> Doesn't MS have a department for this sort of thing?  Employees on all
> the high-visibility sites checking things out, posting, etc?
> 
> For example, there are some PR people on this list.
> _______________________________________________
> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>