Comments on: Battleground Wikipedia

By: Metrosexual

Metrosexual — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:58:41 +0000

I use Wikipedia as a reference or source of information, but I always (ALWAYS!) keep in mind that I am reading user-contributed text and I would never go off and tell someone something “because Wikipedia said so”.

By: NOVEDGE blog

NOVEDGE blog — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:08:04 +0000

Who is Using Wikipedia to Promote Autodesk Inventor?…

not exactly an encyclopedic and objective style, I would say A few days ago while browsing Wikipedia searching for information I landed on the Autodesk Inventor page. Going through the text I was surprised when I found a series of…

By: Zach

Zach — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:35:03 +0000

The Wikipedia system for resolving these situations is called Mediation. Jon was actually part of this process for the TechCrunch article and has blogged about it.

http://blog.val...n-on-wikipedia/

By: swami

swami — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:07:03 +0000

Here we are introduced the Hedge fund please invest

By: Kami Huyse

Kami Huyse — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:19:54 +0000

jccalhoun: They have this, just no one does anything about it.

By: My Name is Kate

My Name is Kate — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:58:21 +0000

Wikilobbying … Stephen Colbert’s ongoing love affair with Wikipedia…

In an excerpt on Monday night’s show discussing Microsoft paying someone to edit its entries on Wikipedia, he coined a new term: Wikilobbying.Wikilobbying: When money determines wikipedia entries and reality has become a commodity.Hilarious. Harbinger…

By: מסעותיו של מרק בשבילי החיים » ארכיון » שני סיפורים על ויקיפדיה אחת

מסעותיו של מרק בשבילי החיים » ארכיון » שני סיפורים על ויקיפדיה אחת — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:02:34 +0000

[...] מייקל ארינגטון פירסם את הסיפור בבלוג שלו techcrunch. בלוגר של מיקרוסופט שקרא את הסיפור בtechcrunch החליט להדגים את הבעיות של הענין על ידי שינוי הערך על techcrunch בויקיפדיה כך שיכיל פרטים לא מחמיאים במיוחד. בנקודה זו מייקל ארינגטון עמד חסר עצות וגילה חוסר רוח ספורטיבית כאשר כינה את המעשה ונדליזם. [...]

By: jccalhoun

jccalhoun — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:34:40 +0000

If only wikipedia had some sort of section for discussion of each article where people who think an article about them is incorrect could post and explain why they think it was incorrect. They could call this discussion page “The Page of Discussion” or something catchy like that….

By: Ian Brown

Ian Brown — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:37:39 +0000

I don’t really think that “vandalized” is the appropriate word to use here. I strongly urge readers of this post to follow the link to Dare’s site and read the original post describing the intent of what, I feel, can justifiably be called an experiment (and one that seems ethical in it’s intent and execution).

By: Kami Huyse

Kami Huyse — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:47:20 +0000

Mike, I am staying out of the who was right/wrong here as it pertains to the TechCrunch Wikipedia entry. I think you have every right to be mad, but on the other hand it shows how impossible this Wikipedia situation can be, especially if you aren’t a high profile company. Both you and Microsoft now have a reasonable chance you entries will be changed.

However, my main reason for commenting is that I want to correct a factual error. You say that “the discussion area of the Wikipedia page in question does not show any Microsoft involvement.” That isn’t true. If you look through the discussion pages, Doug Mahugh DID in fact join into the discussion on the entry on 15 August 2005. A Wikipedia named HAl agrees with him and even says, go ahead and make the changes, give secondary sources, and then we will check them out. But no one makes any changes, certainly not Microsoft. Someone later even says that Doug would probably like to make changes but they would be instantly rejected. Then there is a lot of talk but no action. I can see why Microsoft stepped up to find someone to look at the article and make changes and I applaud them for being willing to let someone make changes without any editorial control. In the end it didn’t work out for them anyway, and everyone is flamed. The price of transparency on Wikipedia I guess.

By: tinkerer

tinkerer — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:00 +0000

Mike,
Calm down … I checked out Dare’s blog … he openly says what he did, which as he puts it is more of an experiment. I think you’re out of line for calling it vandalism. You’re taking this way too personal. Chill and present the facts.

By: Michael Arrington

Michael Arrington — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:12:23 +0000

ah, no. Dare didn’t apologize. He did the classic “I’m sorry you’re upset” routine. He thinks the whole thing is great.

And the “spirit of wikipedia” can kiss my ass. I wasn’t defending wikipedia in the post. I was defending Microsoft. No one seems to have bothered to read it, least of all Dare. Just scroll up and read it. You’ll see what I mean.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:59:13 +0000

Hey Mike. Although Dare chose you to be his “experiment” and not everyone appreciate this kind of pranks (since he did it without your knowledge), he apologized for his actions and I think to be impartial (in the spirit of the wikipedia which we are defending), at least post his apology comment link besides the Update so that people are presented with a complete view of the picture.

By: Michael Arrington

Michael Arrington — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:57:43 +0000

Brian – this entire post and all of the comments self deleted sometime earlier today. This has never happened before. Either someone with creds for the site did it without realizing it or some major bug came out. I reposted, but all comments were lost.

By: Ioannus de Verani

Ioannus de Verani — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:04:28 +0000

Sorry this happened to you, Mike. I think that you should demand an apology from the MS guy who did it…

By: Using Wiki in Education » Blog Archive » Techcrunch editor targeted over Wikipedia incident

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:02:00 +0000

[...] Last night I wrote about the blogger who received an offer from Microsoft to be paid for editing a Wikipedia entry on their behalf. Today, that story continues with a report that a Microsoft employee who took issue with Techcrunch editor Michael Arrington’s post about the controversy vandalized the Wikipedia entry for Techcrunch, then wrote about it on his blog. Clearly this person isn’t very sophisticated, and is probably just looking for his 15 minutes of internet fame. To be clear, I think the employee was reckless here, and so I’m not placing blame squarely on Microsoft’s shoulders. What’s really interesting is that his experiment, as he referred to it, was a failure. The vandal wrote that Arrington wouldn’t be able to fix the entry himself, as that’s perceived to be a conflict of interest, nor could he solicit others to do so. Instead he would have to post a message on the talk page for Techcrunch entry, to which the vandal concluded, “Yeah, I’m sure that’s going to get read as much as the Wikipedia entry.” Contrary to what the vandal thought, less than two hours after the vandalism took place multiple people had reverted the page to its previous state, citing Wikipedia’s guideline stating “Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point”. [...]

By: Brian Donovan

Brian Donovan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:13:58 +0000

Yesterday, I’m quite sure that I had comment #2 on this page, pointing out that the Microsoftie who approached Jelliffe had, in fact, been active on the Talk page for the Wikipedia article and citing the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Today, my comment is gone.

What gives TechCrunch mods? Feel free to email me at the address associated with this comment with an apology and to restore my comment. Thanks.

By: rodrigo

rodrigo — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:06:57 +0000

I was curious as to what all the hubub was about so I checked out Dare’s post…. For god sakes, the guy makes a completely reasonable point that I can’t see how anyone (except someone who is is either completely paranoid or hyper-sensitive) would take issue with. Flat out the guy just says that the wikipedia editing format is problematic and gives a quick example.

Yes, he could have added his comment to the article about Zamfir but who would care. He obviously chose a topic that would get some attention and the silly claim of “vandalism” on here and crunchnotes only drives his point further.

By: Sami Jabari

Sami Jabari — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:05:56 +0000

@Dave R:
Insulting me does not help make your point stronger. But, thanks anyway.

TechCrunch is an excellent blog that I read everyday. I love it. But, despite what you might think, it’s not perfect. In fact, — and you might want to sit now– Mike does make mistakes, and he does favor companies against others. TechCrunch is biased. But, it’s okay. I know it, other readers know, and Mike acknowledges it publicly.

What I didn’t like about Mike’s response was the bad attitude in replying to Dare’s changing his Wikipedia page and calling it vandalism. You can feel the hard feelings on Mike’s side. It’s okay to feel bad, but don’t call it vandalism because he only added facts that were missing from the page. It doesn’t matter what his intentions were; facts are facts.

By: Johan

Johan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:53:21 +0000

Wikipedia is getting powerful, so powerful that not even big mighty Microsoft’s able to change the info they publish

By: Sascha

Sascha — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:18:41 +0000

I say have a duel and fight it out! At the next TC meeting Michael and whoever wants to represent Microsoft from the Mountain View office should duel each other with waterballoon bombs. Oh and maybe someone from Wikipedia wants to join in as well!

When did everybody and everything become so damn important? Lately it seems that any kind of change on any website or blog is always analyzed and dissected into pieces smaller than atoms to get to the bottom and meaning of everything. A deleted post on some completely unimportant blog suddenly turns into an industry-wide conspiracy, companies use CIA-like techniques to lobby their wanna-be-standards etc. The only thing missing here is pretexting!

Does anyone seriously believe that the content of a Wikipedia article is important enough to change anybody’s opinion about a (Microsoft) standard or format? Yes, I use Wikipedia as a reference or source of information, but I always (ALWAYS!) keep in mind that I am reading user-contributed text and I would never go off and tell someone something “because Wikipedia said so”.

I was assume any intelligent reader would do the same. But maybe my initial assumption is already wrong.

By: quux

quux — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:01:33 +0000

Dave R:

Seriously, no TC hatin’ here; your assumption is wrong. Now, Dare also says his ‘experiment’ wasn’t hate or hit-job motivated. At best this is arguable. Interesting that you claim to know my intentions, and his and Microsofts, better than we ourselves do.

By: dan

dan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:13:56 +0000

Yeah I don’t see why this is a big deal.

The only thing I’ve come to is that I’ve lost some respect for Microsoft and even more so for TechCrunch with your response…to the point that I’m actually wondering if I’m better off spending time reading the TheSuperficial.com. Way to claim you’re a journalist and then call a guy an ass…that’s what I would call savvy.

By: gatmang

gatmang — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:10:29 +0000

microsoft should just buy wikipedia

By: Dave R

Dave R — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:00:52 +0000

No, quux. Arrington already made that point in his original post. This was done maliciously to attack techcrunch becasue Microsoft didn’t like his post. try not to let your hate for techcrunch get in the way of basic logic.