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.

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.