MS tries to influence Wikipedia with $$$$$$$$

[sloggerkhan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8925/1023/
M$ has no respect for anyone's principles when it comes to spreading pro-M$ propaganda.

[MaximB]

Old news Pal... ;)

[steven8]

It's not old to me. Thanks for posting it.

[sloggerkhan]

The CNN article is about 3 days old, i guess...

[steven8]

3 days is not old, especially if you've never heard about them like me. It's news to me. I am no fan of MS business practices, but I would be disappointed in the Wikipedia staff if it is true that they didn't respond to request from MS about the article in question.

Knowing MS, though, it's more likely that the article is not inaccurate, but a truth they don't want known. :-)

[shining]

3 days is not old, especially if you've never heard about them like me. It's news to me. I am no fan of MS business practices, but I would be disappointed in the Wikipedia staff if it is true that they didn't respond to request from MS about the article in question.

Knowing MS, though, it's more likely that the article is not inaccurate, but a truth they don't want known. :-)

Yes indeed.



Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a "white paper" on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.


If they posted something outside, everyone could see both version, wikipedia and microsoft one, and it would be up to the reader to decide, and everything would be clear. But it seems like ms always prefer it when it's all dark.
It isn't possible to know what ms consider inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles?

[darkhatter]

This was on digg sometime ago, and I'm not a fan of Microsoft but that title is miss leading and wrong. There was a mistake with the article and they asked someone to fix it.