Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: bill
Microsoft landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site.
While Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered a definite no-no.
"We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach," Wales said.
Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft.
Anyone here have a similar experiance?
This notion of money is evil and free is good amongst netizens is ridiculous.
Wikipedia will fail
Masses do not do things for free for very long without some sort of WIIFM factor, which wikis have none of.
Oh please... that's what everybody said five years ago, when Wikipedia started. Look where it stands now.
I'm a volunteer editor at Wikipedia and I've been in combat several times with companies trying to promote themselves. They usually do it anonymously, but the edits mostly are so obviously biased that they're easy to spot. If the edit contains information that is relevant to the topic, I leave it in, maybe edit it a bit to suit writing standards. If not: revert to the previous edit. The company may try again, but after a while they usually give up.
It's only a problem if you believe it.
I've been in combat several times with companies trying to promote themselves.
The thing that turned me off to wiki was my son did an essay on a purely historical subject (no commercial subject matter whatsoever). He used wiki for his information. He got an F because the editor got his/her facts wrong. I take the blame for not reviewing his paper as I am a historical buff of sorts. Went back to double check the wiki source and could not believe what I read...even the dates were off by a couple of centuries.
So, the problem simply is not the evil companies trying to correct incorrect information or trying to promote themselves.
Wiki is not an authoritative source. If you combine non-experts to edit certain subject areas and companies changing information for promotional purposes. How can one really rely on wiki being a trustworthy source of information?
Wiki keeps biting the hands that feed them. First, one of its founders announces a search engine project to compete with Google under the pretense that Google is not good enough... and now Gates gets a slap on the knuckles. Pure arrogance.
wiki will self destruct within 36 months.
...founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people make directly self-serving edits, to the point that nofollow is turned off site-wide. Advocates from lobbying groups and "think tanks" join in the eding of policy-oriented articles to slant the arguments in favor of their clients and employers. If you don't admit to having a conflict of interest, how likely is it that the conflict will be detected?
If you catch somebody editing in a manner which would create a conflict of interest if performed for an employer, does it make a difference if that person claims to be editing "on his own time"?