Two wiki wrongs don't make it write

Microsoft has caused a stink over a Wiki gone wrong. The company offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on Wikipedia--and now it's really paying the price...

According to the AP, "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.

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. Spokeswoman Catherine Brooker said Microsoft had never previously hired someone to influence a Wikipedia article."

Um, so why start now?

Brooker said she believed the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp., which is a big supporter of the open-source standard and that Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia. Microsoft believed that having an independent source would be key in getting the changes to stick -- that is, to not have them just overruled by other Wikipedia writers.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute (rather than just painting Microsoft as devil).

Perhaps the information is heavily slanted. That can happen. Heck it happens in the media all the time. But Wikipedia is rooted in objectivity and the same rules just don't apply. What I find interesting is how Wales recommends righting the issue, "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 discussion forums".

And here's the epiphany I would have given Microsoft had they asked...

Sure, it's a lot more work than hiring an "independent source" but it could have been a platform for you to showcase--more transparently and far more respectably--how the entry is biased. Further, you could have then turned around and claimed that INSTEAD of trying to rig the system, you may be a poster child for wiki posts done wrong but you're the champion of ethics done RIGHT.

Then the closed-source behemoth could tout its open-and-honest policy. Instead of being reactive, the company's spindoctors could have said, "sure, we're banked enough to hire an army of bloggers to 'write' the wrong--but we didn't. Nope, we used it as a way to show other companies how to respectfully work their way out of similar bias brouhahas."

Now wouldn't that have bought Msoft a lot of goodwill? Silly Microsoft, now you've only called MORE attention to the "may-be-wrong, may-be-right" write.

You could have made it better for everyone and in turn, made it really good for you. But now it's bad for you and your overworked PR cleanup crew. D'oh! I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: Folks, there exist myriad opportunities in mishaps...if you look at them as such.

Psst: Paul and Clay...this might be a candidate for your own upcoming Wiki (which is all about doing the right thing ;-).

Comments

[Paul McEnany]

Well, hell, we do need to start getting our shit together on that (translated, I need to quit being such a slacker). And, why am I not surprised that a large company would rather PAY their way out of trouble rather than actually WORK ther way out.

[CK]

Those silly boys at Microsoft should have called us to set 'em straight.

And, don't you love my nudge to Clay and you? Course you could always let someone else do it and then you'd kick yourself (after I kicked your butt first ;-).

[gianandrea facchini]

we have probably written several times about it: smart ideas and smart executions are the most simple ones. but then what to do with all your mba diploma hanging at the wall? you must suggest something complicated to show that you are a literate guy. simple solutions may sound simplistic but most of the times are the most appropriate.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

In Microsoft's defense, all businesses hire people to correct what they think is wrong. Even if they had used inside people, those people are being paid a salary, so we would still be discussing a paid person making changes.

I love all you guys and suspect I will be on the outside looking in with this comment, but I don't think Microsoft did anything outrageous or bad. And by hiring an independed outsider, it appears they tred to offer a neutral insight into open source. Of course, none of us are neutral about anything.

[CK]

Lewis:This is why you're so good to share viewpoints with. You give me good food for thought and...whom else tells me they love me when they disagree with me? You rock.

Here's the beef I have: They hired an independent that was not to reveal that he was writing only because he was being paid to (he was a member of the community as I understand). Because Wikipedia is based on objective, authentic feedback from the user comumunity (and MSoft knew this), MSoft was confidentially hiring someone to work on their behalf that the community trusted to be 'objective' not paid. Not that I'm excusing IBM if they abused the system in the first place.

On another note, I do maintain this was a huge opp for MSoft. Instead of rigging the system they could have assailed IBM from another angle...and come off smelling like a rose and setting a great example in return.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

Good points. The consultant should have identified him/herself, as should IBM or MS employees.

[Cam Beck]

Scott over at Media Orchard has a good article about this subject: http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2007/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-your.html

Without going into Microsoft's decision to try to circumvent Wiki's rule, here is my favorite part of his analysis:

1. Many Wikipedia contributors may be motivated by self-interest that is not as easy for you to identify (and thus eliminate).

How naive is it to operate under the assumption that Wikipedians have no point of view on the entries to which they contribute?

If I am an academic who, for example, is an ardent supporter (or ardent opponent) of President Bush, should I be allowed to contribute to the Bush entry on Wikipedia? Well, technically, I have a conflict of interest -- so I shouldn't.

I would guess, however, that for the great majority of Wikipedians, having a passion about various topics is what draws them to post or edit entries in the first place. If you remove the self-interest, you remove the passion. And passion is what drives people to contribute -- for free -- to an online resource.

[Mario Vellandi]

If Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, why is there such constraints on feedback/review from authenticated representatives of companies, products, and people being written about? That, to me is a broken and irresponsible system if valid objections to inaccurate data are not being addressed in a timely and objective manner. And it can represent borderline Libel.

If feedback/retorts aren't inherently allowed, then I agree that MS should have posted a link to a well-designed microsite retort. That is constructive criticism at its absolute best. The 500-lb gorilla being a champion of democratic journalism...and an awesome opportunity to build brand appeal.

[tammy allen]

The whole wiki thing is wiking me out

[V-+a%S(p#E*rsT=`hE..]gra_Te[]

Another method would be to start your own wikis via JotSpot or PB Wiki or other fine free wiki services.

Microsoft could start wikis on various topics related to operating systems, API usability testing, network security, and other issues. These could be built and admin'd by MS employees and outside experts.