Talk:Microsoft offers to pay blogger to 'correct' Wikipedia article

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This is so slanted against microsoft, its not even funny. (I'm not a big fan of microsoft, but come on). 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I see the NPOV? here. They apparently did something they weren't supposed to do (didn't play by the rules), so it looks, to me, like the article is pointing to that Towsonu2003 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, but there is a very distinct Microsoft is evil and trying to control/whitewash everything feeling to it (old version, new version is a bit better). Bawolff 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they broke the rules. I do think they bent the rules a little. Their approach was a little roundabout, but they didn't edit the article themselves. They got someone else to do it, and whether or not that person was paid is irrelevant to the main point because he was kindly given complete freedom to change the content. Breaking the rules would be Microsoft paying the guy to write x and y points about the company, but they didn't do that. Kareeser|Talk! 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia founder liked the bent rules...
Cquote1.svg "We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach," Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said. Wales stated that the proper thing for Microsoft was to write a "white paper" concerning the article, post it on an outside website and then link it to the discussion page of the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums. "It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way," Wales said. Cquote2.svg
from the article Towsonu2003 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Evanreiser 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that while Microsoft could have published a white paper, that may not have had the same effect as hiring Mr. Jelliffe to edit the article to exhibit a NPOV. Could Microsoft been more tactful? Yes, they could have omitted the monetary aspect, but remember: The entire controversy is being touted as a backroom dealing by Microsoft when that simply isn't the case. Think: If there was no money, and a higher-up had asked Mr. Jelliffe to correct the article, would that have stirred controversy? Of course not. However: The fact that money is involved in this has nothing to do with Microsoft being secretive.
All of these sources are anti-MS because they paint Microsoft in a bad light. Microsoft "Doctors" Wikipedia Article, when in fact, Microsoft actively encouraged Mr. Jelliffe to conform to his own standards and tell others of the agreement. Microsoft has nothing to hide, and they're right for it.
Cquote1.svg "I think I’ll accept it: FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see". Cquote2.svg
I added my own emphasis.
The more important rule to observe is that the subject of the article should never alter the article itself. That said, Mr. Wales can't edit his own article, just as Microsoft can't edit the article on OOXML or whatever it was. Did Microsoft observe this rule? Yes. So why are they being penalized for it?!
While I'm at it...
Cquote1.svg 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.

My response? Instruction creep. Kareeser|Talk! 07:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, to be repetitive, almost all the previous comments are based on the incorrect notion that some edits had already been done, or that the MS offer involved or necessitated going against or ignoring or remaining ignorant of Wikipedia rules. That being the case, as good faith demands, I ask that this article will be corrected to reflect that 1) no rules or guidelines were actually broken, 2) there is no actual evidence that any rules or guidelines were intended to be broken (despite the slashdottery), 3) Wikipedia has procedures in place for controversial subjects with experts who may by necessity be closer than ideal to aspects of a subject, such as the talk pages, to which I have been welcomed (as I indeed have been) though under scrutiny (which I welcome.) 4) There are other standards experts who are much closer to their subjects than I am who also regularly participate without any fuss. (I have mentioned David Wheeler below. There are others too, such as IBM's representative Rob Weir.) 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is too late for this article to be modified Rick. It's history. Your asking that this article be modified would include what? Something that never actually occurred? -Edbrown05 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is to late to change it. We could potentially put a correction notice on it if the article warrants one. Bawolff 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
the correction template is used if there's a factual error in the report that shld've been caught at the time of publishing. from a cursory glance at this talk page, it appears to me that what Rick is looking for is not so much a correction of errors as a look-in for his views on the incident. an interview appears to be indicated.  — Doldrums(talk) 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To say it again. I believe the premise of this article is borderline defamatory: that there was some kind of secret conspiracy to doctor. If there was no conspiracy or premise of wrong-doing, there would be no story. I am not denying that story became news, nor that it was interesting. -Rick Jelliffe
Rick worked on many of the standards, and Microsoft *ASKED* him if he could correct some of the glaring mistakes, because they can not. If Wikipedia is so open, why can't Microsoft correct mistakes in pages about stuff they make? Cause they cause stuff like this. And then they OFFERED to pay, if he wanted it, for time spent fixing the pages. This was out of good faith. Now all you see in the news is "Microsoft pays blogger to 'correct' wikipedia pages". Now to call him just a blogger is demeaning to him, considering what he does for a living. This entire page is a news artical that is based on pages who did not check their own sources very well. If you click on the links at the bottom, and keep checking their sources, the story starts changing quite a bit. 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Google News is your friend (added sources)... Towsonu2003 04:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Wikinews own IRC channel is off-site, and worse, not transparent to the point that in-my-opinion it should be removed. Yeah, people will talk, but the most wrong place to talk about anything that has an impact on article is off-site. At least Wikinews had the compunction to try at a "Comment" page. -Edbrown05 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

? The new comment tab got killed (unfourtanatly), but I don't see what that or irc has to do with this article. Bawolff 06:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Killed, hmmm. -Edbrown05 06:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with this article because the former chair of the WMF seems to think the appropriate place to comment on articles is off-site. -Edbrown05 06:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: [1] Quotes from irc (I'm assuming your talking about jimbo quotes in article, as I can't find anything mentioning irc and jimbo elsewhere): I think in that case its okay for Jimbo to say stuff about articles offsite if we're going to quote him. we can't expect everyone we want to ever quote come on and log in. Jimbo's (like the rest of the world) is a busy guy, and proablly would be annoyed if he had to come all the way over here just so we could quote him. (on the other hand if he's complaining about an article you may have a point. The key thing is who asked who. If one party asks then the other should be able to choose the venue imo). Bawolff 06:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"open source standard"[edit]

I changed the link to OpenDocument so that it names the standard directly, rather than calling it the "open source standard". I'm not sure that's even a meaningful term. To keep the Open Source link, however, I noted that OpenDocument is used by the two leading Open Source office suites (OpenOffice and Koffice). --Evan 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

title wrong[edit]

Hi. The title is wrong. According to Microsoft, Rick hasn't been paid (yet). -- 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

also according to his blog Evanreiser 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for fixing the title for good Towsonu2003 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My life as an aficionado[edit]

Hi. I am the Rick Jelliffe of these articles, so I definitely have a POV, so I will limit my comments to the articles rather than the story itself. Almost all the articles are re-hashes of a single Associated Press story, which rehashes an IDG story. You can tell the source of the articles because the AP stories claim I call myself a standards aficionado the IDG-derived stories have me calling myself a standards enthusiast; actually, the website says standards activist but fact-checking has played no part in this story at any level. (In subsequent stages of the Chinese Whisper, I became a standards pundit even.) Another feature of the press stories is that there are frequently comments made which are not actually attributed to anyone: for example, the SMH story has a quote 'tried to doctor' without ever giving a source for this. Similarly, other articles use the phrase "has been accused of" without ever stating who was the accuser, if anyone. An accusation without an actual accuser is a rumour, I would have thought.

Hi back. I'm not getting the sense that you believe this article is not factual. I am getting the sense that you are unhappy with the way you have been portrayed in the press, but hopefully not here. -Edbrown05 09:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the article is better than most press articles. But it does play up the conspiracy angle, which is entirely incorrect (and borderline defamatory when explicit.) You don't conduct a conspiracy by advertising it beforehand in a syndicated blog read and quoted by both sides of a controversy, do you? Anyone reasonable person would read the head paragraph "Software giant Microsoft has attempted to correct a Wikipedia article concerning the Microsoft Office Open XML format." and say "Good! We want articles correct." Instead, the premise of the article and press stories is, it seems to me, that something wrong happened: but what is it? That MS can't pay me to find out what the correct avenues are, and, if the avenues allow, to use them to move improve the entries?
What the article doesn't say is exactly what "view" Mr Wales was disappointed in: that Wikipedia should be correct? I hardly think so. I suspect he was asked by a journalist "MS is secretly trying to subvert Wikipedia" or something. Because I had not actually done anything at that stage (it was only an offer that I was mentioning), the comment that they should have linked to a whitepaper in the discussion pages is a complete non sequitur: it suggests that something else had been done instead of using the talk pages, when *nothing* had been done.
One press article even mentioned bribery! At one stage, the story became something that journalists had "discovered"! Many people commented in blogs that it would set a bad precedent (as if there are not other experts active on the talk pages: look at OpenForumla's Dave Wheeler on the ODF pages for example). But their comments are based on the premise of something underhand having been discovered. One of the points of my comment was that almost all the articles (including this entry) are largely cut and pasted from the same source, and which has a dodgy premise. (As far as the allegation that IBM has been editing and commenting on OOXML and ODF matters whether secretly or openly, I don't think I have ever publicly endorsed or espoused that position: MS' motivation in talking to me is interesting but that is their motivation not mine.)
WHy isn't this article titled "Wikipedia helps sort out appropriate ways for good faith improvements to controversial articles involving paid experts"? That would be closer to it. 07:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think neither Wikipedia nor Wikinews is too much interested in "paid" persons. Good faith contributions form the essence of its content. The fact that nobody gets paid for any contributions to Wikimedia sort of limits the extent to which a person will travel, or extend any effort, to uncover details which you, Rick Jelliffe, seem willing provide. That is disappointing. -Edbrown05 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I love writing for Wikinews, and i do not get piad. My resources are limited and if i were able to travel somewhere in the world to report a story I would. I love being able to report on local stories in My area. I am willing to travel, and I also will go at lengths to get informattion/details. I try and sometimes an article I do is not my best. If I could do more I would. DragonFire1024 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is interesting that Microsoft would consider an entry important enough to pay someone to investigate how they can get their POV fairly represented. I'd like to think they get wiki well enough to realise that the bolded word is the critical one. If you've tried things like entering a year (Eg 1969) into Google you'll see how common and easy to access Wikipedia is becoming. Companies will pay people to play the game and do damage control for them. This case is as open as wiki standards would expect. I'd expect we'll have to cover several stories on people trying to pervert the wiki in the next year, the BBC and ilk will cover the issue when it starts to look it is problematic for the wiki way. We need to make sure that attempts to perform "corporate damage control" on wikipedia are appropriately reported. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)