That’s a bush-league play. I’m shocked the MS let it get so far. I’ve got a client that has implemented a corporate blogging policy so unauthorized people can’t do stuff like that.

You have my apologies, I didn’t expect that you’d get so upset. I chose you as an example because I assumed you wouldn’t mind since you have to deal with criticism of TechCrunch on a regular basis. My mistake.

However I’m curious as to why you think this classifies as “vandalism”? Reading the Wikipedia entry for notable press such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN I see sections on controversies and mentions of bias.

Why shouldn’t the same exist for online news sources like TechCrunch?

Dare, it isn’t what you wrote, but WHY you wrote it. You are a representative of Microsoft and you just trashed a journalist who wrote about your company. And you didn’t even read the damn post very carefully - I defended MS.

Mike- Don’t you think you over reacted just a bit? No need to be a drama queen. No one from Microsoft is trying to make you look bad.

No “Roy”, I don’t think I over reacted and I don’t think I’m being a drama queen. I think a representative of Microsoft just vandalized the techcrunch wikipedia page in response to an article I wrote about them and I’m pissed off.

I didn’t take his post to mean he “didn’t like [your] post” at all. In fact, he says : “Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch has a good collection of links to the relevant online occurences…”

Plus, I think his point is a valid one. How ARE companies supposed to change a Wikipedia entry? As can be seen with this Microsoft story, the Wiki-nazis are going apesh*t because Microsoft wanted a legitimate change, to a legitimately flawed entry. If a MS IP address had shown up on a Wikipedia entry’s history, how much hell do you think MS would’ve got for THAT? And to top it off, they didn’t try to hide a darn thing!

This has to be the lamest, stupidest “controversy” in technology in the past few years. I’m really starting to dislike Wikipedia… and I think it shows why social-anything will eventually fail: It’s way too easy for stupid people to screw it up for everyone else. And in this case, it wasn’t Microsoft doing the “screwing up”.

There are a lot worse things to pissed off about “Mike”. Your Wikipedia entry being “defaced” shouldn’t be one of them. Just get one of your fan boys/girls to log on to Wikipedia and change it back.

Howard, He also wrote, when discussing our post:

“I’m trying to figure out how we go from Microsoft having problems flagging mistakes to Wikipedia editors and trying to get the relevant entry updated while not violating Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules to Microsoft is trying to astroturf Wikipedia.”

Roy - read the comments to this post. There are no TechCrunch fans. I’m losing a battle of opinion, to microsoft of all companies, on my own blog.

Howard, I think the big problem was this:

“However, the discussion area of the Wikipedia page in question does not show any Microsoft involvement.”

Jeez Mike, grow some skin, will you? So tired of your whiny moaning about every little thing. Unsubscribing.

Ok so just to summarize: I write a post that is largely pro-Microsoft but contains one or two criticisms of them. A Microsoft employee responds by adding accusations of improper behavior on the TechCrunch Wikipedia entry. And everyone is cool with that?

Does anyone see this as a way to potentially chill free speech? Hello?

Nevermind.

Ah, the interesting trend of an open microphone in the hands of executives/personalities who stand to lose by speaking into it. This sort of easy, open access to speak into the public via blogs, etc is probably one of the single largest headaches for publicists at the moment

Microsoft already starts at a very low “score” with most people… However, their respect was moving up pretty quickly with most people as they became “people oriented”. Now it looks like someone FUBAR’d the progress…

The fact that Microsoft paid a blogger to edit their Wikipedia entry, making front page news on CNN (my MOM called me up to tell me) probably subtracts a few “points”. Don’t forget to subtract (a lot) more points for defacing another person’s Wikipedia entry in retaliation to unwanted media coverage.

Should I contact CNN to warn them that their entry might be defaced as well?

Oh, and the only complaint I have about TC is that Mike takes forever to answer e-mail (hint)… LOL

As long as people keep feeding the Wikipedia it grows stronger.

It was an interesting idea on a smaller scale, but it’s broken on a world wide scale due to overzealous editors, anal wikiregulars and information that is difficult to correct (and keep live) by first party sources.

The very community that stregthens, weakens at the same time.

mike: “I write a post that is largely pro-Microsoft but contains one or two criticisms of them. A Microsoft employee responds by adding accusations of improper behavior on the TechCrunch Wikipedia entry. And everyone is cool with that?”

my opinion: i think reasonable people can come to an entirely different interpretation of what dare wrote. that’s what creates the impression mike has overreacted. dare was making a reasonable point, using techcrunch’s wikipedia entry as an “example,” and mike chose to see that as an attack rather than deal with the substance. and that’s why some people think mike should just develop a thicker skin. after all, the changes in the wikipedia entry don’t actually harm mike, can be changed back, and obviously weren’t done as any official microsoft response. plus dare apologized when asked.

is there really a story here?

bbebop - it was a (very) qualified apology - “You have my apologies, I didn’t expect that you’d get so upset. I chose you as an example because I assumed you wouldn’t mind…” Out of the infinite number of “examples” he could have chosen anyone. Bill Gates for example. But instead he chose TechCrunch, re-bringing up an issue that we’ve addressed over and over. And he did it in the same post where he criticized our coverage of his company.

“is there really a story here?”

Drama? Yes. Story? Not really, no, except maybe Dare pointing out logically that the Wikipedia page for TechCrunch is incomplete and needing revision by somebody.

Alas, it seems balance at Wikipedia in circumstances like this is extremely difficult to achieve. Call me Web 1.0, but I’d rather have an encyclopedia with a given set of vetted expert editors, not the world at large being able to edit anything and have it debated into the page people see over time.

Dare’s timing was very bad though here, which I agree with Mike on that front. Microsoft was already taking the hit for the actions of another employee and didn’t need yet another employee fanning the flames.

Is it my imagination, or do I detect an ‘It’s ok if people continuously underline the criticisms of MS, but NOT ok when they do the same to ME’ flavor running through this thread?

Just a thought. I at least like to think I have no bias for/against either Microsoft or Mr. Arrington. Somehow the old saying about gooses and ganders feels relevant, if not exactly a perfect fit for this tempest in a teacup.

Well, TDavid, I’m sure that you’ll get your wish and this “controversy” will be added permanently to wikipedia.

quux - Microsoft is in the business of making software, not reporting on rumors about bloggers. My business is writing about companies. Microsoft got into the business of attacking journalists who criticize them today. That’s not tit for tat. That’s improper behavior.

Can’t we all just get along?

Mike,
I read your stuff all the time… I like that you have crunch notes to blow off steam… I think your reaction is a little strong on this one.

What Dare did was pretty cheeky and frankly very effective. He used you as an example because he knew involving you would make his point ripple through the blogsphere faster than if he tweaked someone else’s entry. Take it as a compliment and move on.

Mike - drama like this isn’t encyclopedia-worthy, I don’t wish that. I think the part about your conflicts of interests that you have already admitted to having in the past however must be noted somewhere by somebody. Don’t care if it’s a Microsoft employee or you or the hot dog vendor closet TC fan.

I also think you personally should be able to — and be encouraged, in fact — to correct any misinformation about TechCrunch from a historical perspective on Wikipedia. The fact that you are discouraged leaves the resulting material suspect. Who knows more about Techcrunch than the creator? It seems to me not getting your historical, factual input — at least factoring it in — negatively impacts the end result document.

The whole notion of you or Microsoft or anybody having to write whitepapers and submit them to a third party site in order for it to be considered was the funniest thing I’ve read today.

TDavid - the last thing I would ever, EVER, do, is edit any wikipedia entry, particularly one that has to do with me. It’s quite simply suicide. As to factual inaccuracies in wikipedia, that’s not my problem to fix.

But what Dare did today was inexcusable. He could have used anyone else for his example, but he chose to pick me out, right after he criticized my post. If he was just some guy it would be one thing. But he works for Microsoft. And now I and others know that MS is willing to take swipes at people who criticize them.

I’m sorry you don’t see it that way. Maybe if it was aimed at you you’d feel differently.

And the very fact that I am spending my day dealing with “conflicts” issues again shows how damaging this was.

I’m still in the dark as to what Microsoft needed to edit. My thought (and most likely, other people’s thoughts) was that Microsoft was attempting to remove information that they simply didn’t like (regardless of whether it was true or not). Of course, there’s a 50% chance I could be wrong…

Anyone know what exactly was changed?

Mike: “I’m sorry you don’t see it that way. Maybe if it was aimed at you you’d feel differently.”

No, I don’t care what the Wikipedia says about me or any of our websites as long as it is accurate.

Feelings aside, that’s what all this is about, isn’t it? A technical evangelist at Microsoft believes some information on Wikipedia is inaccurate and wanted to try and correct it. How he went about it and who he worked for is being questioned more than whether or not the information was truly inaccurate?

If Wikipedia is to be of use to the world at large as an encyclopedia they must provide historical, factual accuracy even if the subject doesn’t like it or finds it unpleasant. Facts are facts, history is history.

TDavid - I don’t really see what that has to do with Dare’s decision to vandalize the techcrunch page on wikipedia. I addressed your issues in my techcrunch post.

“I don’t really see what that has to do with Dare’s decision to vandalize the techcrunch page on wikipedia”

Oh do stop being such a little drama queen.

This ‘vandalism’ was nothing more than documenting unseemly events you had been involved in. Namely a conflict of interest, and some unsubstantiated claims and mud-slinging you made about the NYT.

While you may wish to attempt to airbrush these events out of history, they did occur and thus are worthy of being documented on Wikipedia.

I wonder, would you have been as upset if an Apple employee had done the same thing?

Dare doesn’t exactly represent MS on this issue now does he? Just because he works there doesn’t mean he speaks for them.

Yes he chose to pick on you because you wrote the article on MS. Did you expect that no one would challenge you or is it just that he did it so successfully that bothers you?

wow.

Mike, he didn’t vandalize a thing. You need to learn to keep the sensationalism down before something bad happens. James was right in saying that all it was was a case of documenting a few things not already on there. The fact that you need to blow everything up for no reason is disturbing, to say the least. It is unbecoming of a journalist to be so overly biased against a company and its employees.

You’re a disgrace to the journalism community.

Mike; Your reaction to this is absolutely disgusting. He called you and, and you start going all bananas on it. It has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a microsoft employee, and we all know it. One employee doesn’t represent the entire company.

So, Mike, you’re allowed to criticize companies because you’re in the “business of writing about companies,” but if a company criticizes YOU in return, then that’s out of line because they’re supposed to be busy making software? You’re the only one with the license to criticize because that’s your “business?” Sheesh.

You’re so used to blabbing about whatever you want about whoever you want, and everyone loves you for it.

The moment someone pushes back you flip out. For cryin’ out loud, man up, bro. You’re cred just took a ‘very, very deep hit’ with some people, even your little crunch fanboys.

wow. again.

What, you don’t have any response? The point is that you’re setting a huge double standard. It doesn’t matter that you were defending Microsoft in your post.

Someone edited FACTS onto your Wikipedia page, and you don’t like it. It doesn’t matter, they’re facts, grow up.

Great post Bryant. That’s exactly how I feel, only worded much better than I ever could.

No, I’m not. It’s just that the facts are being so insidiously twisted.

- I’ve been criticized for being too pro microsoft in the past, not the other way around.
- my post was pro microsoft, he just didn’t read most of it
- of course the fact that he’s a microsoft employee is relevant to this. He was defending his product and his company, disagreed with my post, and then vandalized the wikipedia entry.
- this isn’t a double standar - it’s a situation where a company took out a hit on a journalist that wrote about them.

I’m just totally speechless.

While I agree it was a pretty toolish thing for him to do, I think it’s a bit of a leap from a relatively low-level cog in a massive corporation modifying a Wikipedia page to “Microsoft got into the business of attacking journalists who criticize them today”.

I’d imagine it’s the way you’ve tried to pin this on Microsoft rather than Dare that’s left most of the previous comments a little less outraged than you.

Dare: you’re a feckin’ artard.

Apparently what everyone in this thread is missing is the conflict of interest Dare has here.

It isn’t that he edited the Wiki. It’s that he edited it with such a clear bias of opinion and conflict of interest. Does he represent MS? Sure he does, if we examine similar cases of blogging employees getting canned for writing for or against such conflicts of interest.

Dare’s little experiment proved one thing: he’s willing to monkey with the system to get his point across. I wouldn’t call it vandalism or sensational, though. I’d just call it juvenile.

That’s the crux of the matter though, Mike. Just because you don’t *like* what he wrote *doesn’t* make it vandalism.
After reading what he wrote, I’m honestly confused why you even decided to call it vandalism.

Man, talk about getting served.

Oh please stop whining about everything Mike.

I just have nothing more to add to this conversation.

While one can’t say that Dare is in any way objective when he discusses Microsoft “bashing”, nothing he did in this article was taken by me to be an act on behalf of Microsoft, nor did it seem to be an attack on or retribution against TechCrunch or Mike Arrington. Most people reading his post will view his actions as making a valid point about the veracity and accuntability of Wikipedia’s editorial positioning. So please, Mike, re-read Dare’s post and perhaps try to be a bit more charitable in your interpretation (though one cannot fault you for your initial perspective, given the vitriol of the abundant trolls in this forum, I think most readers will see your initial reaction as overdone if not unwarranted).

Sincerely,

- Ian

It does raise a good question of how big companies should help out sites like Wikipedia.

I posted a discussion question on it about Windows Live Gallery, which I work on, but I didn’t actually change the entry. In my discussion question I asked how people wanted me to help out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Live_Gallery

I am yet to get any responses. I want to just start filling it out, but I would be afraid that people would think it is just spam…

Thoughts?

All Microsoft employees are required to follow a strong set of business and personal ethics requirements as part of their employment by Microsoft. I suggest you file a formal ethics complaint with Microsoft Legal and see who’s laughing in a few weeks/months.

“(H)e vandalizes the Wikipedia entry on TechCrunch to…prove a point? What point? That he’s an ass?”

*AHEM* We prefer the term: “cheap shot artists”.

Just FYI

I’m saving this page in case these comments suddenly vanish. This needs to be kept on file in case such a situation arises again.