Microsoft disses Wikipedia
OK, this will give those Microsoft bashers and open source freaks some comfort in their mania. Seems that a recent CNN story chronicles a seamy scheme involving Microsoft's attempt to edit Wikipedia's content to take the edge off criticism of MS vis-a-vis its open source counterparts in the programming world. For those of you not familiar with Wikipedia, it is a self-edited encyclopedia of sorts that defines various tech and non tech topics in a free wheeling exchange of intellectual discourse.
I am a self admitted Wikipedia freak, using it as a definition source for most of the technical terms that I use in this blog. While there are some conspiracy theorists out there who claim it is part of some cabal to control common wisdom on what is and isn't the truth, there is some allure in a self correcting list of definitions that doesn't rely on educational or PR institutions to define common terms and phrases.
In this case, Microsoft claims it disputed various claims concerning open source in Wikipedia listings and tried to resolve the dispute by calling it to the attention of Wikipedia authorities. After hearing no suitable response, they contacted an Aussie blogger to look into the matter and post an "independent" edit of the offending material.
Setting aside whether you are an open source affectionado or Microsoft supporter, the bottom line is that there are means to address disputes in Wikipedia definitions that Microsoft either failed to follow or didn't know about. Disputes that are brought to the attention of Wikipedia management and result in no edit are supposed to be resolved by writing a research paper, posting it on a website and then posting that link on the offending listing as a dissenting opinion.
I can't say that I disagree with this protocol. It keeps the spirit of an open and freewheeling dialogue while disallowing public relations rewriting of history and definitions at will.
Once again, I try my darndest not to be a Microsoft apologist and I support open source and Macintosh alternatives to Windoze and the big Redmond, WA tech behemoth. But I also recognize that 90%+ of the world operated in the Microsoft environment and those of us making money in the tech world have to at least be conversant in MS if not operate largely in these systems and software.
Still, they were smarmy by trying to get around the commonwealth definitions of competitive operating systems and programming languages. Let the market define itself. Whatever that definition is, it will likely include a huge market for Microsoft (like it or not).
Chris Crawford
www.justiceserved.com