Dare Obasanjo, a Microsoft employee (apparently this person is the son of the President of Nigeria?) apparently didn’t like my post about Microsoft’s attempt to pay a blogger to make Wikipedia changes on their behalf, so he vandalizes the Wikipedia entry on TechCrunch to…prove a point? What point? That he’s a jerk?
As an experiment I’ve updated the Wikipedia entry for TechCrunch with a mention of some of the claims about Mike Arrington’s conflicts of interest on the site and references to negative blog posts but no link to his side of the story.
My respect for Microsoft just took a very, very deep hit. I’m not sure if/how we’ll respond. This action would not be acceptable under any circumstances, but I also wonder if Dare even fully read my post – I defended Microsoft.
I have a suggestion to companies: Request your employees to refrain from attacking journalists who write about you. Respectful disagreement is one thing. This is something completely different.
Mike: Wow.
I second that. I’m surprise about how much anit Mike/TC sentiment there is out there.
I am an avid reader of TC, but don’t post much, but this issue has motivated me.
Let’s start by reminding everyone that MS is a CONVICTED monopolist, and therefore, any actions they take to underhandedly change Wikipedia’s entries on software/standards they have a vested interest in should be looked at with suspicion. The correct way for MS to voice their disagreement is on the discussion page, where everyone can see both sides of the argument.
Dare’s actions were inappropriate as a response, in any context, however you look at it. Mike’s reactions were understandably charged, but I believe he absolutely did the right thing by blowing this issue up and making people talk about it.
In general, the real issue is transparency. Microsoft paying someone to edit a Wikipedia entry is not transparent. This is an issue that is unfortunately plagueing our country right now and the last place we need to see it encroach on is the free minded, open spirited tech community.
Cut Mike a break, and focus the discussion on the real issues: transparency, monopolistic abuse, journalistic freedom.
Man up, bro. Man up. Dare’s just one of 71,000 employees at Microsoft. Your respect for Microsoft shouldn’t take a “very, very deep hit” from this single incident. I think someone just got pwned on his own blog, if you ask me…
Ariel, it doesn’t matter if Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The fact that Mike called it “vandalism” indicates an attitude almost fanboyish in nature. This wasn’t vandalism, and the apple-prone people on Digg marked the digg story as such. Even they agree that Mike took it too far.
What I don’t understand is why you keep saying “representative of Microsoft” as if what Dare did was some sort of Microsoft official activity. Read the disclamer on his blog for starters. Can people have no life at all but what company happens to employee them? I have seen no indication that Dare was acting as anthing more than an angry individual. Frankly I think you keep bringing up Microsoft just to make yourself look like some kind of victim of a large company to draw more attention to yourself. Unless you are only upset about this because someone who happens to work for Microsoft did it then why bring it up at all?
Chill out Mike. These comments have the look of an organzied attack against you.
—————————-
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.
—————————————-
Mike, lets look at it this way, Please help me to correct my understanding if I am wrong…
Mike works for Techcrunch and owns (can I say that??) and Dave works for Microsoft. Mike likes his blog and Dave loves his company that he works for. Mike calls his writing on his blog as journalism and considers whatever Dave does as vandalism just bcoz Dave works for Microsoft. If Mike writes something on a blog and not in a news paper or something, he still represents journalist community, but if Dave writes something, its not journalism and its pure vandalism. And just because Mike has board which people visit, he wants everyone to feel sorry for him and force Dave to remove his entry himself by making him look guilty in the eyes of people….
Dude, just chill, as Newton says “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” Now dont start saying, I was defending Microsoft.. it doesn’t matter, when you appoint yourself as a self claimed journalist and decide to write about anything and everything, get ready to be written about, and if you cant please stop writing and being a “journalist”
And what does your statement “I just have nothing more to add to this conversation.” say ?? If people would have supported you here, you would have added fuel and made this big issue, now when people started to oppose you here, you refuse to offer any more to the conversation.. What does this speak of you.. Common man, grow up and stop being a kid when you are not..
After saying all this, you might feel I am against you or something and start publicizing that. You can do so, but let me tell you, that I am a big fan of TC and a regular follower and I adore the way you brought it to Number 5. But that doesnt make you a super human being who refuses to take in criticism….
Also, just a few days ago, when you changed the entry on Geni, u said you are no journalist to issue errata, now y suddenly a cry of brutality against journalism?? Talk about double standards hmm…
Stop whinging mummy’s boy
Mike,
Why did you steal Digg’s thumbs up/down icons?
this is crazy. mike, you called Dare on ‘vandalism’ on perfectly valid edits. We all know you have conflict of interests, why shouldn’t they be on Wikipedia? talking about retaliation…
the bigger irony is Jimmy Wales blasting Microsoft. I love WP, but Jimmy the co-founder is the man who edited his own bio to remove reference to his co-founder.
that is wow…
This:
“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.”
is just laughably paranoid.
You’re conflating an individual who works at Microsoft with corporate intent, and, as far as I can tell, you’ve got zero evidence — or even *indication* — that such a conspiracy actually took place.
I mean, seriously, what do you think happened? You think that management at Microsoft called a meeting and asked each other “How do we screw this Arrington guy?”
You believe that perhaps Microsoft management concluded that the most effective way for the richest corporation on the planet to fuck with you would be to somehow force some mid-level employee on the Windows Live team to use his *personal* blog (where he has a disclaimer that his opinions expressed therein are explicitly *not* representations of his employers) to . . . to do what? Publicly acknowledge that he edited Wikipedia to reflect accurate (if one-sided) information that you yourself have already publicly acknowledged?
Cuz, you know, openly copping to posting information that’s already out in the open is *so* much better for smearing someone than some silly approach like . . . oh, I don’t know, say, anonymously posting never-before-heard unfounded allegations? Or just throwing a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars of available Microsoft cash-on-hand at making your life difficult in any of a myriad different ways?
You really think Dare frickin’ Obansanjo is the sword Microsoft brings to bear when they want to take a swipe at someone that criticizes them?!? Dude, if Microsoft itself had taken a swipe at you, you’d know it (most likely because your bank account would be empty and your lawyers would be crying).
Your reaction to this incident has done more damage to your reputation than anything Obansanjo posted to Wikipedia.
Mike, a lot of what you write kinda pisses me off but I’m in 100% agreement with your anger here and quite frankly, I’m astounded at the responses you’re receiving. Reading between the lines, though, it seems clear that many of the posters _don’t_ see any real value in Wikipedia, so I guess the idea of page vandalism occurring to prove a point would seem to make sense to them. It’s the only reason why I can image they’d see your concerns as “petty”.
Something is odd about all of these comments, but I just can’t put my finger on it – maybe there’s too much Microsoft-happiness going on? Microsoft has 70,000 employees right? I assume that most of them are aware of this blog post.
Goll-lly. Why are so many people so stupid? Everyone says, ‘Don’t be whiner’, ‘drama queen’, etc., but nobody is looking at the simple fact that Mike Arrington has a right to be cranky about someone bashing him on Wikipedia. Microsoft gets bashed all the time: why should they care enough this time to ‘punish’ Mike? Not a smart move, MS.
Sorry everyone is being so dumb, Mike. Just to let you know, if there was a way I could subscribe twice to your blog, I would do it…
I’m just a former journalist, but doesn’t “truth” count as a defense for libel?
Is it vandalism to report a previously omitted truth, even if it is negative? If so, then I can report the Chicago Bears won 15 games, but they could sue me for mentioning the 3 they lost.
I don’t know a single one of you on this forum, but it is clear to me that Dare was simply using an object lesson to make a point, and doing it on the #6 blog in the verse causes less damage than doing it to mine (#1,000,000+). Simply because the “damage” (if we can even call it that) is more likely to be corrected quickly. There are a hell of a lot more people willing to speak up quickly for high-traffic entries for Mike Arrington than John Seigenthaler.
Hey Mike. Although Dare chose you to be his “experiment” and not everyone appreciate this kind of pranks (since he did it without your knowledge), he apologized for his actions and I think to be impartial (in the spirit of the wikipedia which we are defending), at least post his apology comment link besides the Update so that people are presented with a complete view of the picture.
What does microsoft have to do with this? Dare didn’t do this on behalf of microsoft or even from a microsoft blog. He did it of his own fruition on his own blog on his own time.
I and a few other edits are reverting these edits, as they are in breach of [[WP:POINT]].
I suggest you stay away from the article, however.
I agree with TMann, the large amount of entries by people who leave no link back to their own blogs and don’t mention their surnames leads me to suspect foul play. What’s the opposite of astroturfing? Peatbogging? Swamping?
From a speech that I once attended two phrases have remained: “The village is coming back. The problem is what kind of village.”
Yes, what kind of village will that be? A global village in which every individual will need to be a skilful orator to be able to defend him or herself might remind us of ancient Athens but is certainly not the kind of village that many of us are envisioning. I hate that in this world of “democratization” of journalism (blogging), in this world of free involvement, open social projects and open source applications, one thing still is key: reputation. I hate that from the many advantages that a village has to offer we chose the single most damaging disadvantage and have made it our quality metric: reputation. But isn’t it an oxymoron that in this age where information is fragile, i.e. freely and frequently changed, where no authoritative (dogmatic) opinions are to be found given the information overload, one thing will remain non-fragile and that is reputation. And shouldn’t it be worrying that Wikipedia should be the culmination, like the village coffee shop, of reputation setting scenes and gossip arguments.
Myself, I hate the new village in which everyone will need to be a public relations expert in order to survive. A society with no forgiveness is not the society which we aspire to. Like the old villages but this time on a global scale. At least in the past you could migrate but now there will be no place to go under the Internet which has replaced the sun.
Things are not that tragic of course. But this is certainly not democracy. The balance of power is attained in democracy when public opinion is allowed to create only general rules, called laws, and not being allowed to vote, especially in an unreliable open forum on issues concerning an individual.
Dare is right when he said that this year “is the year that the blog died” because it seems that town loneliness is more valuable than we once thought and is certainly more desirable than the worldwide exposure that kills. And before you say that blogging is optional, let me remind you that you might not want to blog, but you cannot prevent others from blogging about you and you certainly cannot prevent the worldwide and authoritative village coffee shop (Wikipedia) from talking about you. Clearly power is passing from the hands of the elected leaders to the benevolent dictators and the coffee shop owner. However, the coffee shop is not a place to make politics and it should certainly not be a place where the future of corporations and of individuals should be at stake.
Influencial and vocal bloggers are still a closed community. A group of individuals who more often than not vote one another and whose readers do not represent public opinion. However, it is a community which, due to some search algorithms, has managed to remain at the top of the web, right on the doorstep of the Internet, i.e. Google. And what are journalists doing? Simply copying blogs or one another without critically thinking first. They are not better at all.
I don’t know the solution. And I am not saying that village coffee shops like Wikipedia are bad. But we should be careful and think to where all this is leading.
I’m starting to get very worried. Yes, Mikes’ reaction to Dares’ action is somewhat over the top, as was the initial response to Mahughs’ attempt to have the Wikipedia entry altered.
But what worries me is the large number of people that do not only come to the defense of these two poor misguided Microsoft employees, but who seriously argue that Microsoft as a company should be allowed to do this. Either a lot of people have suddenly lost the ability to think rationally or there is some serious MS-astroturfing going on here.
Ofcourse a company should not be allowed to change Wikipedia entries about that companies product, even if they are incorrect. And neither should it be accepted that it pays others to do so. Nor should it be tolerated that it edits the entries about those who dare to critize that company.
If Wikipedia was a print publication this would be beyond question. If the employees of a company as powerful as Microsoft are allowed to get away with this, if the argument that other peoples publications, be it Wikipedia entries or blog postings are “unfair” justifies these kind of reactions, then free speech is indeed in serious danger.
“Ofcourse a company should not be allowed to change Wikipedia entries about that companies product, even if they are incorrect. And neither should it be accepted that it pays others to do so. Nor should it be tolerated that it edits the entries about those who dare to critize that company.”
Thanks Rick, this is so straight forward, I’m amazed there are people saying otherwise. This goes for any company and any of its employees. I understand Mike’s indignation, regardless of the company.
Besides, using Wikipedia to “make a point” is so stupid, I’m speechless, and Mike’s right to be angry for that too.
Free speech is in danger only if there is a single source of information that everyone takes authoritative. I understand the points about the conflicts of interest and that Microsoft employees shouldn’t be allowed to edit articles on Wikipedia as in other online or print publications. Let’s not forget however that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia not a publication. A publication is efimeral as it publishes news not opinions on any and every kind of issue. A publication has a director and an editor who are responsible under the law. An online community of opinion-shaping users who are trying to be at the same time objective, do not.
Wikipedia is not a publication. It is an encyclopedia. This is not a battle of free-speech. On the contrary it is the question whether everyone has the same freedom of speech on this open encyclopedia.
Have just read full entry on Dare’s blog and seems to me Mike has legitimate reason to be pissed if Dare works for Microsoft as where are the boundaries here?
Dare’s entry is entitled ‘ How Do We Get Rid of Lies on Wikipedia’ and concludes after mis-using Mike and TC Wikipedia page for effect “It’s unfortunate that this is the reward Microsoft gets for being transparent and open instead of taking the low road.”
Since when have Microsoft employees been the best source of evidence of how transparent and open Microsoft is?
Let’s get the disclaimer out of the way.I’m a Microsoft employee and a longtime TechCrunch reader.
Though I don’t agree with Dare’s way of proving a point, I think you’re missing his root point. IMHO, I dont think he’s really out to ‘vandalize’ your Wiki page. He was trying to point out how absurd it is to ask someone to write a whitepaper and post a link in the talk to defend themselves.
If you look at Dare’s post, his beef seems to be more with Jimbo Wales – I really don’t see him angry with you. I’m a guy who loves Microsoft (hey, I work there after all) and though a lot of this mess makes me angry, I don’t think your post was biased against MSFT at all.
Yes, this wasn’t the best way to make this point – but Mike, I’m surprised you haven’t looked at what Dare is actually trying to say. This isn’t about you – this is about Wikipedia.
And why the sensationalistic headline? Yes, all of us Microsoft bloggers are ‘representatives’ of the company – but don’t you think we can do something on our own and not get quoted as ‘Microsoft employee does X!’. When Tim Bray says nice things about JSON, do we say ‘Sun employee talks about his love for JSON’? Dare, I and even Mahugh are all just folks working of our own free will, because we care about something.
I really wish this were a joke, but I do see this as a gross over reaction on two accounts.
If a company hires an independent individual to make edits to a wikipedia entry based on what they view in their professional opinion to be inaccurate, I think thats great as long as its reported. In fact I think the inaccuracies an independent source reports are invaluable to wikipedia. I would love to know that an entry I’m reading has been verified by an expert. And lets face it, someone has to pay the expert to take a look at the entry.
If Microsoft had done anything to hinder the ability of Rick Jelliffe to chose his own edits than that is SEVERELY problematic. But the contrary was true, the edits are not approved first about Microsoft and this individual in question is not a pro-MSFTer. I think the blogging communities response in this area is an over statement.
Dare on the other hand, made an edit with factual information, proactively proclaimed the edits he made leaving it up to the world to remove if they thought the information was inaccurate. I really thought it was a tounge in cheek response which would have prompted a laugh or two from Mike, and a statement about the obvious conundrum. This hype that he is a MSFT employee and representative is ridiculous.
Dare has a fairly popular blog on his own, why can’t he be considered a blogger? He was acting independently and reporting on it that sounds like a bloggers actions to me. I don’t understand why he isn’t being treated as such, a blogger joining a larger discussion.
Again he documented exactly what he did, which means if any one felt it was inaccurate or one sided it could have been reported as it was. The attitude of Mikes response seems focused on having some sort of punitive action placed on Dare for what? Offering his perspective in the larger discussion openly on his personal blog?
People are taking this far too serious, its wikipedia remember the encyclopedia that any one can edit, he used it to illustrate the larger point and I saw no malice in his response.
I am a MSFT employee though so perhaps I’m not allowed to enter this discussion either. Tsk tsk.
Now people are jumping into the discussion and saying essentially ‘What’s wrong with you people, you’re defending *Microsoft* for crying out loud!’.
Folks, the larger point has nothing to do with Microsoft; they are just the visible example this time around. You don’t have to like Microsoft; if it helps you to be more logical, substitute ‘Sun’ or ‘Apple’ or ‘The Make a Wish Foundation’ wherever you see the word ‘Microsoft’.
The issue is still the same – a group of people with their own inherent biases are allowed to write whatever they like about another entity, who is then powerless to respond with anything more than an (apparently ineffectual and relatively invisible) plea to be treated more fairly.
Mike.
That’s crap. You shouldn’t be arguing to have Microsoft censor it’s bloggers. Are you insane?
I agree that what Dare did might have not been the best/nicest idea but encouraging MS to censor is blog posts is NOT a good idea.
Kevin
Kevin – I’m not asking Microsoft to censor its bloggers. I’m asking Dare to stop shitting on my lawn, if you know what I mean.
It’s interesting how some guys attract these sort of blog comments and others don’t. I wonder why that is. You don’t see this bitchiness on, say, Om Malik’s blogs.
Mr. Arrington…
With all due respect, this was never about you. It was about Wikipedia, and the Wales Cult’s narrow-minded paranoid definition of objective truth.
The mere fact that anyone on this thread who publicly absolves Microsoft in this incident is castigated as a “Microsoft shill” or an “astro-turfer” is proof enough.
Seriously, chill. Your lawn got “fertilized” because it gets enough traffic to make the point. Be proud that you’ve set the record for the fastest growing blog in history. Also be proud that you have some degree of credibility, which explains why TMZ or Perez weren’t hit instead. Put away that little sack of anger.
\\braces for inevitable web searches seeking to prove some connection between me an Microsoft…\\
I am with Mike. It one thing to talk about someone or give constructive criticism on their own blog but to go onto someone’s *turf* and profile page on wikipedia to do a so called experiment just to prove a point is another matter — that would make me mega pissed off too!
And like Mike said it is not what he wrote, it is why he wrote it. If we allow this to go on and ok this, what will happen next?… will it now be ok to deface or add to another person’s/ company’s wiki profile just because they are “big enough not to care”?
Wikipedia is a public place where profiles can be changed by individuals but lets all be mature about the whole thing and respect someone’s profile page regardless of how famous or less than famous they are perceived to be. Actions like that is indicative of a 5 year old. I also expect more class from a Microsoft employee knowing that they don’t need any more negative flack directed at them. An experiment massively gone wrong definitely — the word stupidity and idiotic is an understatement. You want to prove a point, do it *legally and ethically* without soiling someone’s turf.
Good thing I am not *famous enough*… if not the next target will be me and as I am not in that famous class, I DO care.
Here’s a revolutionary concept; prepare to be amazed:
Dare != Microsoft
Wow. Stop PMSing and be a man.
This is my first time at Crunchnotes. I do not have an opinion on the parties involved. However, it does seem obvious that whatever Dare did wrong or not, Mike’s response was purely emotional. He did not consider the issues, he did not attempt to be a man and give Dare the benefit of the doubt, he just flipped into “YOU DID THIS TO ME!” mode. A responsible journalist would have responded differently whatever the level of his anger. To start off insulting someone sets the tone and underlines the character of the one speaking. By starting off calling Dare a donkey or someone’s behind underlines that Mike is one or the other.
The issue here however is not about personalities. whatever routes were taken to make the point, however right or wrong they were, the issue is that an inaccuracy on a public forum like wikipedia is very difficult to correct. Worse, is how easy it is to post inaccurate info to start with. It should be just as easy to correct. Dare’s actions and Mike’s response are an object lesson on the issue.
Perhaps this is why citizendium is being set up…
By the way, as long as we are losing our tempers and taking personal affront here, I vehemently protest your dragging Dare’s Nigerian-ness into the subject seemingless as an indictment. As an American, you’d be up in arms over someone doing the same with regards to your American-ness. Don’t do to someone else what would equally be offensive to you.
Give me a break. Dare posts as a “Microsoft Blogger”. Whether he likes it or not, whether MS likes it or not, he represents them. This is especially the case when he was specifically defending Microsoft.
All you fools telling Mike to get over it are missing the fundamental point. A person who makes his living working for Microsoft used Wikipedia to punish a journalist for writing something about MS he didn’t like.
That’s an attempt at intimidation. I am amused that you’re all good with it.
I wonder if you’d all be so “get over it you whiny bitch” if it were you being hit.
I bet not.
“I wonder if you’d all be so “get over it you whiny bitch” if it were you being hit.”
I have been hit. Thanks for asking. The difference is that I didn’t care.
I don’t want to get involved in the issue here. Yikes, spare me! But the commenter who wrote “The fact that Microsoft paid a blogger to edit their Wikipedia entry” has his facts wrong in pretty much every detail. He can tell his Mom that Microsoft has not paid me (we hadn’t even got as far as discussing amounts), I hadn’t edited any entries (at that time, I have now added some suggestions in the talk pages), and it (proposed ISO OOXL/ISO ODF pages) is not “their” entry (though certainly related to them). Indeed, I reported the offer in the first place, MS had no problems with me doing so. There never was any intention to circumvent Wikipedia rules. And then I get treated first as a whistle-blower, then a pawn, then a co-conspirator as the press struggled to find a soap-opera plot-line to fit the facts.
As your commenter says “This has to be the lamest, stupidest “controversy” in technology in the past few years.” I actually thought that the “Battleground Wikipedia” item was an improvement on most articles which merely recycle the AP report without any attempt to verify it, because there was an attempt to clarify Wikipedia’s position. So far, I have been pretty impressed the Wikipedia people’s neutrality: pretty fierce to protect their baby but keen that controversial entries can be improved with enough discussion and scrutiny.
First off, HE CANNOT DO THAT, as an employee of Microsoft.
I know everyone see’s he apologized fairly, and given it is wikipedia. But people working at organizations cannot behave any way they wish without serious consequences from their employer. If Mike gets a lawyer, a lawyer WILL send a letter to Microsoft ( his employer ) notifying of a cease and desist against their employee and they may be held responsible.
Doesn’t mean Mikes lawyer can really hurt Microsoft, but regardless, in the best interest of its own company can fire Dare to prevent such misgivings from arising and protect themselves. There are 1000′s of people that can replace dare. Thus Dare realized his mistake and apologized here hoping Mike doesn’t take him to court because it WILL cost him his job.
“He did not consider the issues, he did not attempt to be a man and give Dare the benefit of the doubt, he just flipped into “YOU DID THIS TO ME!”
Bunch of macho bs. Why the f should Dare deserve the benefit of doubt? Oh, right, suddenly it’s about issues and not money, image, politics, or status. How so? In what way? Oh, I get it, whenever I make an example out of someone, it’s just an example right. It’s ok no matter how I argue or reason or act, just as long at I can excuse myself with the same-old-tired line, “your skin is too thick” blah blah blah, “it was just an example”
So, for example, Dare is prime example of how a PR flack tries to cover his ass–for unethical behavior and being a public schmuck without good reason–by putting the burden of argument on someone else. Oh, yeah, that’s just an example, so if your upset by the example, go have a good cry and get a thicker skin.
P.S. remember, only macho guys can reason; drama queens just act all emotional ya know, like women or foreigners or colored people. They whine, complain, bitch, but reason, nah. They’re incapable of reason, right.
Michael! Dare! Please read this one and settle your score back on Wikipedia where it belongs – see below. I’ll ramble a while then say what I’m up to.
On the face of things Obasanjo is digging up dirt on TechCrunch. But it’s a controversy where none exists, accusing an admittedly partisan tech blog of bias.
But as Obasanjo admits that’s not his point. He’s sore that Microsoft got trashed for trying to pay someone to edit Wikipedia articles and wants to prove that if Microsoft can suffer from Wikipedia’s anti-corporate approach, so can TechCrunch.
So Obasanjo adds one-sided disparaging comments TechCrunch’s Wikipedia article, hoping Michael Arrington will be backed into a corner just like Microsoft was, unable to set the record straight.
He fails. His edits violate four or five of Wikipedia’s stated policies. They are biased and “unencyclopedic” (trivial and irrelevant). Within minutes concerned users unmask him as a Microsoft employee who is editing as an experiment to score points, itself a policy violation. The stunt arguably constitutes “vandalism” as the term is used on Wikipedia. So editors unceremoniously delete his comments and that’s that. Or it would be that, but various anonymous accounts flock to restore the malicious edits –eight times after they have been deleted. After this brief “revert war” Wikipedia users give up and for the moment Obasanjo’s edits remain..
Like Internet smoke anywhere, this one attracted the crazies, trolls, spammers, and the journalists. Somebody’s home page got vandalized. There were death threats, leading one account to be blocked. Ruffled feathers. Like every salacious thing on Wikipedia, this constructed story got milked, media prank fodder for blogs the world over.
None of this proves anything, not about Microsoft, Wikipedia, the Internet, or TechCrunch. Not even about Obasanjo, except that he’s been a brat. Disgruntled misbehaving folks abound, provoking people if only to prove that they can do it. You can make a mess if you set out to make a mess, particularly if you have a gang of idiots behind you. That’s like throwing rocks through windows to prove the police aren’t vigilant enough. Of course you can throw rocks. There are no larger issues here.
But Wikipedia is more robust than people think. There are lines of defense behind the one Obasanjo subverted, layers of process to deal with these things. Companies //can// get involved in their own articles and they //do// have recourse. They just have to learn the rules of the new medium. To start you can present your case in the “talk” section of the article, as Arrington has done effectively. Within Wikipedia you can invoke any of half a dozen mediation and arbitration mechanisms. If you want to take things outside there is the famous “white paper” recommendation (trying to influence public opinion in hopes that it carries over to Wikipedia, as is happening here). And if all else fails you can sue, or you can compete in the real world of business and ideas.
The only thing you can’t do is to edit your own article once there is a controversy. Of course you can’t! Can you imagine the mayhem if that were allowed? That’s like letting drunk drivers edit their own arrest records.
In the interest of fairness I’ve invoked one of those procedures, the “mediation cabal.” Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/TechCrunch#Discussion. And you can see my comments and others in the “talk” section for Wikipedia’s TechCrunch page.
An experienced neutral editor is now going to try to make peace between the two sides. That’s the gentlest approach but it requires everyone’s cooperation. We’ll see if anyone is really after truth or they’re just being a jerk. And if everyone wants to play nice, we’ll see how well the system works. If that fails this can get escalated all the way to the top. Whatever the resolution is it will be based on process. So before you write about how Wikipedia is unfair, hang on a bit and see where this goes. Also, consider how easy it is for people to create much worse messes on blogs, discussion groups, social network, newspapers, and other sources. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on Internet misbehavior.
Back to the real point. All is fair in journalism, business, and war. Dare Obasanjo has every right as a human being to promote Microsoft and score what points he wants. But by disrespecting the hardworking people at TechCrunch and Wikipedia he is reflecting poorly on his employer, and I doubt Microsoft would approve. That’s Microsoft’s cardinal sin here, not that they’re wrong about open standards or about spinning things in their favor. That’s what the whole field of PR is about. The problem is they’re clumsy, ignorant, and disrespectful of the rules of the road. Mike Arrington is justifiably upset that he had to bear the brunt of this.
Personally, I agree with some that Wikipedia’s idealistic no paid editors policy is misguided and introduces an anti-business bias and lack of authority that’s just as bad as the pro-business (or business versus business) bias they’re trying to avoid. But all the same time, it’s an incredibly useful resource.
Quick! What’s the population of Pakistan? What happens when you breed a tiger and a lion? What year did Wendy’s Dave Thomas work for Colonel Sanders and where can you find his public statements about his feelings for KFC? You can have an accurate, cited answer to these questions in 5-10 seconds thanks to google and Wikipedia. That would take you 5 minutes on a blog and half an hour plus travel time in the library, and you wouldn’t get as complete or accurate an answer. Within its realm of competence, Wikipedia is unmatched.
So let’s lay off the whole Wikipedia-is-stupid bandwagon, and if you want to make a point about it, why not base it what’s really going on instead of creating your own controversy just so you can complain about it? Time will tell, and either Wikipedia will become a serious business reference or else someone else will step up in its place.
I find this post pretty disgusting.
Mike – I don’t think Steve and Bill were up late last night trying to think of ways to “deface” your wiki. It was one person acting on their own – kinda like all of Dare’s blog posts. Therefore, it is not fair to blame his actions on “Microsoft”
Also – it’s a wiki! People are allowed to say what they want. That is the whole point! If someone posts something you don’t like – try a webpage instead.
…and as far as a PR agency (NOT MICROSOFT) having a “secret file” on a journalist – so what!? Would you hire a PR agency that didn’t have contacts with journalists? How do you think PR agencies keep track of journalists? …hmmm…maybe with a file!
Anyway, I just lost a lot of respect for TechCrunch.
One thing I’ll point out, as anyone who knows and reads Dare’s blog, is this was definitely NOT a organized Microsoft effort. Dare is a passionate, outspoken and opinionated man (much like Mike). He gets fired up about things that bother him, and those things are very often things that Microsoft does.
You can argue all you want about the wisdom and timing of his methods (I’m going to disengage from that conversation), but it’s disingenuous to position this an act “by” Microsoft.
Come on Mike – you of all people should understand agency principles. Do you really think a low/mid-level programmer speaks for Microsoft?
Typical Mike, typical drama queen…blowing things out of proportion like normal just to get a few more hits on his blog.
It’s incorrect, and bordering on a blatant and intentional lie for Mike to try and lay the blame for this on Microsoft. It’s one guy with an opinion who happens to work for a company, but it has nothing to do with the company. He wrote this on his free time, and it’s truly sad to see Mike trying to make this a bigger deal than it should have been.
Talk about a drama queen…
Go on a vacation or something Mike. yeesh.
Don’t mention Mac ads, either…