M$ Wikipedia?

OrianeOriane Turn around.
edited January 2007 in The Pub
Money talks BS ... ?

I'd leave it at that for this.

Outside of my field, I find Wikipedia a valuable resource. I find this a little disturbing.


  • ClutchClutch North Carolina
    edited January 2007
    Damn, that is pretty low. Makes you wonder how many other people have been paid to do this kind of stuff.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin
    edited January 2007
    Brooker said Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia.
  • LincLinc Bard Detroit
    edited January 2007
    Yeah, I don't think they were being underhanded. I mean, maybe not the best method, but they weren't bribing people to say nice things about them.
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan
    edited January 2007
    As far as I could tell they were just trying to get some glaring biased errors corrected, so they contacted a third party to do it. Apparently they agreed on the third party making some changes but MS wasn't allowed to review them. The whole plan seems fine to me and in no way seemed to be underhanded.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX
    edited January 2007
    I think it would have been better to be public with this and make it known that people were refusing to make the edits. Instead of going under the table so to speak. Thats what I don't like about it.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell
    edited January 2007
    Stupid move, but wasn't illegal or anything. Wikipedia is a tragedy in terms of a lot of the information it provides anyhow though.
Sign In or Register to comment.