Microsoft Pays For Wikipedia Edits?

[HardOCP News]

A software engineer in Australia says that he was offered money by Microsoft to edit Wikipedia entries pertaining to Microsoft products. Obviously this guys claims haven’t been substantiated but it would be damning if true.

Rick Jelliffe, chief technology officer of XML tools company Topologi Pty. Ltd., said he will probably accept a contract from Microsoft to edit Wikipedia entries on ODF (OpenDocument Format) and OOXML (Microsoft Office Open XML), competing document format standards.

 

[qkool]

I don't think it would be a problem if they had the guy edit false claims or rumors. But this is microsoft, so who knows

 

[qkool]

Nevermind, reread the article...

 

[Ockie]

I don't see what the big deal is about a founder, organizer, or owner creating his own wiki entry... it's not like they can blatantly lie, people can still re-edit it.

 

[LabRat]

Ockie, he is being paid (well probably not after going public) to edit Wiki articles--with a decidedly pro-MS slant. This sort of activity is becoming far too common.

But I respect that he went public about the deal. I frankly would not care in the slightest if those editing Wiki articles identified any affiliations (owner of this, paid by that) that may conflict with the public interest. Sometimes companies actually do have something interesting to say. But pretending to be a "nuetral" party is an ethical violation IMO.

My own full disclosure--my wife has worked for MS in the past.

 

[Ockie]

Ockie, he is being paid (well probably not after going public) to edit Wiki articles--with a decidedly pro-MS slant. This sort of activity is becoming far too common.

But I respect that he went public about the deal. I frankly would not care in the slightest if those editing Wiki articles identified any affiliations (owner of this, paid by that) that may conflict with the public interest. Sometimes companies actually do have something interesting to say. But pretending to be a "nuetral" party is an ethical violation IMO.

My own full disclosure--my wife has worked for MS in the past.

Realistically, what good is that going to do? With some of the people I see here posting, there are plenty of people willing to create a slant for free of charge.

It's unethical, but since when did companies care about being ethical in business? It's not illegal and that’s all that matters.

This whole wikipedia is slanted as there is nothing as a neutral grounds... it's only commonly agreed upon, which can be a fallacy on it's own.

 

[Farva]

I don't see what the big deal is about a founder, organizer, or owner creating his own wiki entry... it's not like they can blatantly lie, people can still re-edit it.

I remember where there was a wiki entry that was thought to be true. This happened several years ago where a guy posted a lot of false information about a famous man.

 

[LabRat]

Ockie,

Slant is fine, spin is fine, opinion is fine, so long as interested parties (that means they have money at stake) identify themselves as such. You are correct that in most instances what they are doing is not illegal. It is unethical however. (Marketers really need an Ethics standard/Code of Conduct with teeth. Other fields such as my own have that, and it works well.)

You ask what disclosure would accomplish.
Perhaps engender some trust from the public towards that company? Before you sniff haughtily at the idea, consider Google. I believe they could pull just about any stunt and the general public would trust them to a great degree. MS does anything and they are a target of animosity and extreme wariness--a situation of their own making.
Further, full disclosure would prevent lock-downs of the articles in question (a move Wiki may have to consider in this situation) leaving MS without an oppurtunity to disagree within the article.

 

[Ockie]

Ockie,

Slant is fine, spin is fine, opinion is fine, so long as interested parties (that means they have money at stake) identify themselves as such. You are correct that in most instances what they are doing is not illegal. It is unethical however. (Marketers really need an Ethics standard/Code of Conduct with teeth. Other fields such as my own have that, and it works well.)

You ask what disclosure would accomplish.
Perhaps engender some trust from the public towards that company? Before you sniff haughtily at the idea, consider Google. I believe they could pull just about any stunt and the general public would trust them to a great degree. MS does anything and they are a target of animosity and extreme wariness--a situation of their own making.
Further, full disclosure would prevent lock-downs of the articles in question (a move Wiki may have to consider in this situation) leaving MS without an oppurtunity to disagree within the article.

I agree with your comments, but I also believe that it doesn't solve much of anything other than a burning witch crusade. Also, you would have to consider that kind of wrong doing is unethical, perhaps he used enlgihtened words in favor of Microsoft. So you would have to consider all types of slants and if it's really just a slant or if it's a cleanup of personal image.

Google may appear free of all bad things, but that does not mean that they don't do it... perhaps they pay thier slant writers a lot better? Remember the Enron ordeal, no one knew anything was wrong, hundreds of companies were insider trading and cheating the books... that all came down when one person slipped up. Perhaps this insight to Microsofts wiki edits might expose that of googles, yahoo's, and who knows who elses. But my point is that it's something that a company can do but with great care in their cover.