So, in contrast to many bloggers I know, I don’t use Apple. I use Microsoft. I like it for a variety of reasons. I have even described myself as a bit of a fan. But when I heard about Microsof’s latest PR astroturfing blunder, even I had a hard time suspending my disbelief. For pete’s sake, if you’re going to astroturf, at least do it right!
The controversy lies in Microsoft paying a non-Microsoft employee to “correct” Wikipedia entries on some standards-related stuff (that I can barely make out without passing into a stuporous coma). Problem? Said non-Microsoftie decided to blog about it. And, it gets to the press. And Reuters picks it up. Then it gets Slash-dotted. Cue blogger moral outrage right about … wait for it … right about … *now*.
What I don’t understand (and yes, its easy to pontificate in hindsight — but that’s the beauty of blogging) is how Microsoft could have gotten it so wrong in the first place. Like I said — if you’re going to astroturf, do it right! Heck, Microsoft’s real sin is NOT that they were trying to manipulate Wikipedia. I’m sorry to shock anyone’s sensibilities out there, but here’s a clue for you: Other tech companies with standards related issues are ALSO altering Wikipedia. The difference is that they’re doing it discretely.
I am not pretending to know the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works, or how it is able to prevent gaming. Nevertheless, I certainly do agree with an AP article which states that it probably would have been better to hire an external source to write some sort of whitepaper validating their position … and then getting the appropriate Wikipedia entry to link to that
Or, barring that — just doing it right the first time. And maybe get your next blogger to sign an NDA clause of some kind.
[Of course my own attitudes haven't changed; I find the idea of Big Business manipulating social media abhorrent, still. I'm just surprised how silly and stupid Microsoft can be]
tip: Kris Karkoski
January 24th, 2007 at 4:06 am | Permalink
[...] In the words of Deep Jive Interests “if you’re going to astroturf [Wikipedia], do it right!” Wikipedia Sphere It [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 6:48 am | Permalink
Did you happen to see this?
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218248&cid=17724650
It’s the guy who commissioned Rick Jelliffe to have a look at the article and fix the ‘errors’. He’s open and forthright. He says there was to be no review/approval process. He simply wanted an outside expert to apply as non-biased a view as possible, and he wanted to compensate the guy for his time. He specifically told the guy he wouldn’t mind him blogging about it.
As it turns out, Rick Jelliffe hasn’t even edited the article. He blogged about the *offer* to get some other opinions before going forward with it. Both Doug Mahugh and Rick Jeliffe have been straightforward. I see no attempt to ‘manipulate’ WP - only an attempt to add some balance.
Frankly I *don’t* see this as a big deal - in fact I kind of admire the open and forthright way it was persued. As opposed to the secretive and underhanded strategy you seem to be suggesting: “discretely” under NDA.
Wikipedia does tend to lean anti-Microsoft. Here’s a quick example, check these two WP pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_linux - almost-empty article for the cristicism of a 10 year old family of OS’s. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, ya gotta admit there are a few flies in the ointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista - long list of things-to-dislike about an OS that hasn’t even hit the consumer market. Many other anti-Microsoft WP pages can be found without much work.
Now, I make no claims about the rightness or wrongness of either article - only the comparative amount of effort spent on each.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:48 am | Permalink
Hi Tony, I’ve started wondering about something else now… is the concern about hiring a contractor, or is it also about any fulltime employee editing any topic? How about a shareholder, or a customer who feels personally vested?
Here’s the entrypoint to various Wikipedia policy pages, but I’m not sure I see what Wales thinks was transgressed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
What *is* “doing it right”, and how can people tell…?
tx, jd/adobe
January 24th, 2007 at 11:07 am | Permalink
[...] In the words of Deep Jive Interests “if you’re going to astroturf [Wikipedia], do it right!” [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
[...] ここ数日、Microsoftの社員がRick Jelliffeというオーストラリア人ブロガーに報酬を支払ってこのページ[Ecma Office Open XML]などのOpen Office標準に関するWikipediaの記事を編集させたことが議論を呼んでいる。JelliffeはMicrosoftの申し出についてここに書いている。MicrosoftのDoug Mahughは、 この問題に関するSlashdotの記事中のコメントで事実関係をはっきりと認めている。別のソースによれば、Microsoftの広報担当もこれに同調して、「問題の記事はライバルの標準のサポーターであるIBMの社員が深くかかわっており、Microsoftとしては程度の悪い記事の訂正をボランティア編集者だけにまかせておくわけにいかなかった」と述べている。しかし、問題のWikipediaのdiscussion(ノート)ページにはMicrosoftの関与を示す履歴はまったくない。Microsoftが自社の技術に関する記事を直接編集するのは具合が悪いと考えていたことは明らかだ。その点についてはMicrosoftの考えはもっともである。自分自身に関する記事を編集するのは利害の衝突になると多くのWikipediaコミュニティーでは考えられており、そういうことをする人間は必ず非難されてきた。この記事によると、WikipediaのファウンダーJimmy Walesは「Microsoftがこのような手段をとったことに失望している」と述べたというのだが、今晩Walesとメールでやり取りしたところ、「私はMicrosoftがこの問題〔の訂正〕について最初にノートページに書き込みをした形跡が見当たらないと述べただけ」だということだ。自分自身に関するWikipedia記事に問題がある場合、その訂正を安全に行う手段はノートページを利用すること以外にない。 たとえ、その相手に公平な立場から自由に記事を書いてくれと依頼したにしても（この場合がそうだったようだが）、金を払って第三者に直接記事を編集させるのはスマートなやり方とはいえない。自分で直接記事を編集してしまうのも面倒ごとに巻き込まれる元だ。Deep Jive Interestsの記事 が言っているように、「Wikipediaをいじくる（*1）ならうまくいじくれ!」だ。(*1) 原文のastroturfは野球場などで使う人工芝の商品名。それから転じて、政治用語で「草の根（グラスルーツ）運動に見せかけた組織的政治運動」を指す。[原文へ] Wikipedia [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Tony,
You could also argue that Microsoft didn’t it right the first time when they rolled out the Ferarri/Vista laptop campaign. They could have saved themselves a lot of heartache by simpl telling bloggers they had two options: send the laptop back to Microsoft, which would then donate it to pre-determined charities, or the blogger could send it to the charity/non-profit, etc. of their choice. Simple, well-intentioned, etc.
January 24th, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
I agree that the real sin is not editing in the first place, but the absence of any disclosure as to the intent of such editing, and the relationship of the editor to the company that was involved.
What about articles on Wikipedia themselves? Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Wikipedia article on Microsoft can be edited by anyone. However, Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself can only be edited by users who have been registered users for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
This is what it says on that page, something that is not present on many other articles, including on the Microsoft entry:
“Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.”
The entire article system there is supposed to be fair. However, simply locking something up for one reason or the other because it involves the company itself is something even more questionable in my view than employing people anonymously to change or correct information. That is giving special or different treatment to a company simply because it involves the site owners themselves. With Microsoft, you can find out what’s going on. With Wikipedia’s decision, you have no power to even make a change unless you meet a certain criteria.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
As I wrote in a recent blog post, I’ve never understood the logic behind Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules, and this particular incident is reminiscent of the sort of humbug that one would expect from the faithful members of the Inner Party at ODP/dMOZ. Sure, there’s a potential conflict of interest when someone is paid to contribute content to a website that is built primarily by volunteers, but it’s rather naive for Wikipedians to assume that this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time. Indeed, the articles that Jelliffe was supposed to review and edit were allegedly written by people working for IBM.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
So…let me get this straight…people are upset because Microsoft wasn’t sneaky enough??? Wow…here they are trying to do something pretty openly, ask a prominent unbiased person to take some of their time to actually move a Wikipedia article to a neutral POV. Oh and hey, they’ll compensate you for the time it takes. Microsoft was doing a great thing here, as long as they weren’t trying to influence the content that submitted, I don’t see the problem.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:41 am | Permalink
[...] Tony Hung at Deep Jive Interests is no doubt right that this happens all the time, but that doesn’t make it right. And I know that from the sounds of it, this wasn’t an official Microsoft campaign to alter Wikipedia on the sly — according to this comment at Slashdot, a developer came up with the idea on his own and approached someone who he thought could add some balance. [...]
January 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Yea really don’t see a problem. By the way Wikipedia is awesome. Always gets me through my college papers.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
Tony, I heard about this too.. It’s just another amusing Microsoft story out of many hundreds.. just think if we knew even 1% of the stuff that actually happens over there :)
Sidetopic: Tony, do you think you could do a future story about Apple and Microsoft, with regards to blogging. I do use Microsoft, but I honestly don’t know what’s so special about Apple when it comes to blogging? I’d love to hear your views.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
Makes me wonder whether Microsoft really suffered a black eye in its controversy with Wikipedia last week? I keep thinking about the notion that all PR is good PR. Yes it reinforced Microsoft’s bad guy image among the blogger community, but it clearly has the blogosphere buzzing about Microsoft and whether they have a legitimate beef. More broadly, it shines a light on the conflict of interest policies of Wikipedia and may cause some to pause before automatically embracing the point of view of an entry.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
[...] -Deep Jive Interests - Microsoft: If You’re Going to Game Wikipedia? Do it Right! [...]
April 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
[...] ? Microsoft is in trouble for paying an expert to edit Wikipedia entries. Duncan points out that Microsoft has always been seen as an aggressive [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
This post among other things prompted me to start writing the Wikipedia Game Guide on my blgo, detailing just how to do it ‘right’.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
This post among other things prompted me to start writing the Wikipedia Game Guide on my blog, detailing just how to do it ‘right’.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
[...] ? Microsoft is in trouble for paying an expert to edit Wikipedia entries. Duncan points out that Microsoft has always been seen as an aggressive [...]
July 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
[...] the principle of payment for Wikipedia coverage is the key issue here (some argue it’s about Microsoft’s clumsiness), though I’m curious to know why Microsoft (or whichever Microsoft employee pulling the [...]