http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/1/23/6733
January 23, 2007 @ 11:50PM - posted by Matt Mondok
icrosoft asks blogger to "balance" Wikipedia entry, offers compensation

Over the last few days, websites have picked up on a story written by blogger Rick Jelliffe. In a post titled, "An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Wikipedia", Jelliffe says that Microsoft e-mailed him to ask if he would be willing to correct, or balance, a Wikipedia entry dealing with the OASIS OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Microsoft Office Open XML (OOXML). The problem, as Microsoft sees it, is that Wikipedia's entries are heavily weighted against OOXML. Jelliffe, for the most part, agrees with Microsoft's assessment, but he's still not about to take sides.

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. If anyone sees any examples of incorrect statements on Wikipedia or other similar forums in the next few weeks, please let me know: whether anti-OOXML or anti-ODF.

Jelliffe, although he would be paid by Microsoft for his work, isn't just concerned with correcting the OOXML problems, but he wants to make sure that entries for both sides contain facts, not FUD. The context of Jelliffe's post shows that he had little idea that the media would run with the "Microsoft pays blogger to fix Wikipedia" story as he mainly discusses some of the details behind the ODF versus OOXML battle. Nevertheless, most of the focus has been placed on the ethics of the situation, not ODF or OOXML.

A lawyer for Wikipedia, Brad Patrick, has already responded as saying that Microsoft's actions were unethical. Patrick feels that this ordeal puts both Microsoft and Wikipedia in a harsh light. "This is a hot issue, and Microsoft wanting to soften the edges on an entry raises concerns about the perceived independence of both Wikipedia and Microsoft."

A Microsoft spokesman said that the company tried to change the Wikipedia articles on its own, but the edits were refused. "At that point, we realized we needed to enlist some help," he said. That's where Jelliffe came into the picture.

So far, Jelliffe has not accepted any pay from Microsoft, but he has already defended his possible actions.

I have not started or been paid by MS yet. It is only three days work we are talking of, as an independent contractor not as an employee. My opinions are long-held and on public record. I don't have to get approval for any changes I make to MS or Ecma or anyone, so the improvements I make would be my own, not imperitives[sic] from the Borg. The job relates to Wikipedia and not to my blogging or other forums. And I am doing it openly, so that suspicious people can judge whether I have Stockholm syndrome. But at a certain point, grownups look at arguments rather than teams.

One thing is for sure: this is a hot topic. Do you believe that Microsoft was wrong offering someone compensation for editing a Wikipedia entry? How should the company have handled this issue? What would you do if you were Jelliffe?


Link: The actual blog:
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html

Am I the only one wondering, what's the big deal here?

ost individuals who edit Wikipedia on any contested issue have some sort of agenda. But it's the power of the user base as a whole that moderates the entries.

If this guy truly makes "balanced" edits, they won't be rejected by the Wikipedia community. He if just rephrases what Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to put in, the edits probably will be rejected.

Am I the only one wondering, what's the big deal here?

Wikipaedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not corporate advertising or journalism. If companies regularly employed people to put opinion pieces into Wiki masquerading as fact then the overall quality of the Wiki is diminished.

Assuming that all the facts are on the table and everyone's being truthful, this is a very interesting issue and one I think Wikipedia's going to have to deal with on several occasions. And if people aren't being completely honest, well it makes the issue even more interesting.

icrosoft's stance is that they attempted to change the Wiki entry on their own, but the edits were rejected. They believe that the current entry is biased against the product/language/whatever and contains both incorrect and misleading information. They approached Jelliffe to get a third party involved to edit the information with only factual information, so far there has been no evidence saying that Microsoft only wanted Jelliffe to put in positive items.

eanwhile the comments on Jelliffe's blog are pretty telling imo. They start out as completely "Geek" - people taking point after point of ODF versus OOXML, comparing flaws, standardization processes, etc. However as you get closer and closer to the bottom of the comments, they start getting more and more... tabloid-esque. The focus of the comments starts to veer away from the actual technology and starts getting pointed at "Wiki-ethics". To me, that's a great example of when Geeks and Tabloid Ethics collide.

I personally don't think Jelliffe was "coerced" by Microsoft into writing a positive-only side of the ODF/OOXML conflict, but step of offering money, yeah, that's pretty questionable. However if Microsoft's telling the truth about their suggested edits (and assuming those edits were also unbiased), well then Wiki's got an interesting problem on their hands. Assuming that the actual "leveling" of the Wikipedia article would take months to finally become truly "unbiased," what is a company supposed to do in the meanwhile? Especially if the article contained incorrect and damaging information about the subject in question?

Wikipaedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not corporate advertising or journalism. If companies regularly employed people to put opinion pieces into Wiki masquerading as fact then the overall quality of the Wiki is diminished.
I agree but I think there is also a danger that Wikipedia could become tainted by the vitriolic rants of anyone with an axe to grind with a large corporation. I don't think it's right for the Wiki folks to dismiss edits from a company out of hand (assuming that's what they did). Instead they should subject the proposed edits to the same peer review process they apply to every other entry. That process should be adequate for separating facts from weasel-speak. If they don't provide a way for companies to correct factual mistakes about their technologies then I think it's completely reasonable for companies to enlist outsiders to do make the edits for them. In fact, given how popular Wikipedia is, they'd be stupid not to.