Microsoft PR Paying to "Correct" Wikipedia

Unpaid Schill writes "Over on the O'Reilly Network, there's an interesting piece about how Microsoft tried to hire people to contribute to Wikipedia. Not wanting to do the edits directly, they were looking for an intermediary to make edits and corrections favorable to them. Why? According to the article, it was apparently both to let people know that Microsoft will not 'enable death squads with their UUIDs' and also to fight the growing consensus that OOXML contains a useless pile of legacy crap which is unfit for standardization."

Honesty....

This is not new behavior. Remember when Microsoft tried to hire "individuals" to perform "grassroots" work including writing letters to the Department of Justice and letters to the editors of papers around the country concerning the anti-trust trial? Look, I have friends at Microsoft and there are truly some brilliant folks up there, but what the hell is the marketing department doing? Are they *that* ethically challenged? Or is it that they are *that* desperate to be cool and loved? How about a policy of honesty and if there is something that you want, then why not have your Microsoft PR department make the edits? Is that too obvious? It would certainly present other ethical dilemmas, but at least it would be more honest than hiring supposed "impartial" third parties to do your work for you.

Re:Honesty....

A policy of honesty?

How about a policy of let's make as much money as we can!

I mean, come on, this is a corporation, and you're complaining about ethics? Perhaps you're suggesting that they would make more money if they didn't have "unethical" policies like this... but that's not at all clear from your post. It is unclear why, in all situations, a blanket policy of honesty would be expected to maximize profits for corporations. (Let me rephrase that: this is obviously not the case.) Microsoft's goal is not to make you like them; it is to make lots of money. So far, they've been very successful at that. Probably their PR department played at least some small role in that. Don't get me wrong, I despise them too, but let's be clear that they're all doing exactly what they're "supposed" to.

Re:Honesty....

You completely miss the point. Its obvious that MS's (and most other corporations) sole goal is to maximize profit. The question is- should we, as society, allow such organizations to exist? Is it a wise move to allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power in what basicly amounts to a sociopathic organization? Or should standards of ethics and non-monetary issues be forced onto corporations by society (government)?

Corporations as they exist today are a mistake. A way of gathering investment money needs to exist, in order to fund things that need massive startup costs (for example, processor design). But the idea that it should be done by a pseudo-person with no sense of morality, whos only goal is to amass money and power, and with no accountability for its actions is horribly flawed.

Re:Honesty....

You completely miss the point. Its obvious that MS's (and most other corporations) sole goal is to maximize profit. The question is- should we, as society, allow such organizations to exist? Is it a wise move to allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power in what basicly amounts to a sociopathic organization? Or should standards of ethics and non-monetary issues be forced onto corporations by society (government)?

Its worth noting that it used to be that governments were far more restrictive about the corporate charters they would approve, and far more willing to revoke charters for corporations violating the public interest. The special privileges granted with a corporate charter were viewed more as a privilege granted in the public interest and conditioned on good behavior than as a virtual right the way they are now.

What we have now is not some intrinsic necessity for the corporate structure, a remnant of late 19th Century subservience to big business.

Re:Honesty....

The special privileges granted with a corporate charter were viewed more as a privilege granted in the public interest and conditioned on good behavior than as a virtual right the way they are now.

A slightly less rose-tinted view of history suggests that corporate charters were granted when there was an assurance that the ruling prince of the city-state, or his cronies, would get a cut.

Re:Honesty....

A slightly less rose-tinted view of history suggests that corporate charters were granted when there was an assurance that the ruling prince of the city-state, or his cronies, would get a cut.

Since I was (though I didn't make this clear) referring to earlier US history, I'd say that's more of a view of a different part of history, but sure. And certainly neither the earlier US practice nor the more recent one was or is free from the corrupting influence of cash and the cronyism of the connected.

A more accurate statement, perhaps:

I'm no fan of the corporation either, but oversimplifications of history accomplish nothing.

The function of the corporations in early American society was a matter of heated dispute. As of 1780 there were only 7 chartered business corporations in the United States. That number increased dramatically after the turn of the 19th century once the courts and legislatures recognized the legitimacy of private, for-private corporate entities. Ambivalence about the role of the corporation in early American law resulted from tension between those who insisted that corporations serve the public interest and those who believed that the public interest was inherently served by the chartering of private corporations and the creation of wealth that would presumably result therefrom.

On the one side of the debate were anti-mercantilists, Jeffersonian Republicans and artisans who believed variously that corporations were monopolistic in nature; that they the accumulation of vast quantities of capital in private hands characteristic of the corporate form was inconsistent with the civic virtues of a democratic republic exemplified in the American Revolution and would undermine democratic republicanism; and that corporations could be used to dominate markets, driving down the cost of production and thereby reducing demand for artisinal goods. On the other side were those who believed that corporations were a matter of necessity in order to promote the aggregation and investment of capital. In a society of relatively equal wealth distribution, as in the early years of the republic, capital must be drawn from large numbers of small investor/share-holders rather than from individual financiers or aristocrats as could be done in Europe. The structure of the corporation and its ability to centralize management and control represented the most efficient means of operating investments and therefore of developing the American economy, proponents argued.

While demands that corporate charters be granted only in the public interest, and that liability extend to shareholders were common in the early law of corporations, these rules which seemed rooted in longstanding English mistrust of the anti-social corporate form yielded to the demands of the market and of laissez-faire capitalists. These historical developments represent another unfortunate triumph of utilitarianism over tradition in American law.

Re:Honesty....

Sadly, although you are right on, I have found that espousing such a view will get people to look at you as though you have a third eye. Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", everyone also seems to believe in an inherent human right to form corporations, and they cry out in horror when you suggest that granting the privilege of incorporation unfettered is a bad idea. I can only conclude from this that people are idiots.

Re:Honesty....

Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", everyone also seems to believe in an inherent human right to form corporations, and they cry out in horror when you suggest that granting the privilege of incorporation unfettered is a bad idea. I can only conclude from this that people are idiots.

Actually, the grandparent denounced corporations while acknowledging the necessity of a corporation-like object by saying: A way of gathering investment money needs to exist, in order to fund things that need massive startup costs (for example, processor design).

It's incredibly short-sighted to say "X sucks and should be banned", when X provides a useful service, and when no alternative is proposed. Say we banned corporations. Because of the necessity of a corporation-like object, it is very likely that such an object would quickly appear, and over time would evolve into something indistinguishable from today's corporation.

It's appropriate that you likened the argument to the argument over intellectual property. Again, IP sucks in many ways, but has useful consequences. If IP laws were repealed, and nothing replaced them, it is likely that content creators would re-create something similar to the IP system using complicated contracts (e.g., you would have to sign a lengthy agreement prior to purchasing an album at a music store).

Re:Honesty....

I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law ... I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law. He said that he'd never thought about it.

I'm not an American lawyer, but I hope this in some way redresses your "Professor's" ... um ... lack of reflection?

The fact that a corporation is a legal person is the very criterium by which a corporation is defined (limited liability is itself the result of such personality). Being a person allows a corporation to own property in it's own right, sue and be sued in its own name etc.

Before the development of the Corporate form (ie. a company with legal personality), the the joint stock company (a kind of giant partnership) was the predominant form of organising shareholders. This was dangerous for shareholders since they were jointly and severally liable (ie. any damage comitted could be recouped from a single shareholder, all of the shareholders, or anything in between). This did not make investing in overly large companies particularly enticing. When it became necessary to raise large sums to fund the massive capital development which we know as the Industrial Revolution, Parliament addressed this impediment by creating the Corporate form, that is to say a company with legal personality, which could deal in its own name, and take the wrap for any wrongdoing on its part.

This history is instructive in two ways. Firstly it demonstrates that our way of life is predicated on the Corporate form. Corporations, though their influence is occasionally (some might say largely) negative, are necessary (well at least if we want to live in the kinds of mercantile culture we inhabit, and enjoy the standard of living this entails). Secondly, there is absolutely nothing natural about corporations (even in the way a partnership might be described as 'natural').

Corporations are creatures of Parliament. They were created for the social benefit they bequeath, and they were granted limited liability, which is in effect a cost imposed upon everyone else in society. In other words it is a quid pro quo. Consequently there can be no objection to the regulation of corporations, as if this constituted intervention into some natural right of individuals to form corporations. Indeed, when the sacrifice made by society, (in terms of limited liability, lower tax rates etc.) is not being returned by corporations, when the mischief the corporation makes is greater than the mischief Parliament sought to cure, then Parliament ought to address the regulation of corporations. Needless to say, such regulation, must not strangle the goose that laid the golden egg.

Re:Honesty....

I've probably dabbled in that many too, but I'm not that great a coder and I'm certainly nowhere near as I thought I was at 19-23. It may be your soft skills getting in the way. "I'm right, you're an idiot," is sometimes an accurate viewpoint better kept quiet. This is especially true at big companies.

I'll tell you that I've known about ten unbelievable programmers, and five of them would never have said, "I have programmed in over 20 languages." Of the other five, I am absolutely sure two are regularly unemployed and the last three aren't unbelievably famous.

Of course, you're welcome to call me an idiot all you like. I majored in Philosophy, I can take it. AND I work primarily in VBScript, meaning I have developed balls of steel from being kicked in them again and again and again.

As a side note, your resume is impressive, and if you moved you would have no trouble finding more interesting work. Not many do software development in Medford. I can think of three or four companies offhand in downtown Portland that would be completely happy to have you. A few tips on the resume:

"Minor Tech Support for legacy apps I have written," should probably not be on your resume. Don't tell anyone about things you will end up doing in your own free time. Are they supposed to pay you for it?
Life goals make poor career objectives. Pick something you'd like to do (in your and my case, "Work with a small, tight knit team to produce revolutionary technology grown out of the extensive background I have developed with a lifetime of computer work and training," might be appropriate, except I omitted the lifetime of training)
Some of your wording can be compressed. A good resume is MAX 2 pages long, and your HTML one seems to be about four.
I'd suggest dividing your resume differently - put a summary of your skills at the top, then divide it by important project.
Classes are great to have taken, but they don't mean much elsewhere. Link to source code if it's particularly brilliant, in an addendum to your resume called, "More interesting code projects."
Link to projects if possible, or make the source code available. This can be done in an Office document of any type you choose. Throw some code samples in text format on your website. Remember to document these samples a whole bunch.
Overall, your resume reads a little like a tech reference book; this is kinda bad.

As a disclaimer, I don't know what kind of companies you're applying to. Generally, you tailor your resume to the position you apply for. They want Java? Write a resume that shows all the things you've done with Java. They want C-based driver work? That's when you say, "I loves me some math." But don't complain when people pad their resume; just live up to yours in your interview.

Re:Honesty....

Speaking as someone who used to interview candidates for tech jobs on an almost weekly basis, I'd say that it would make little difference whether you've worked in 3 or 4 commonly used languages, or 2 In order to get to 20, you'd have to include a fair bunch of obscure languages which tend to only get rolled out for academic/experimental use and rarely have any relevance in the commercial arena -yes, I've worked with Eiffel, Prolog and Miranda too but I wouldn't waste the time of an interviewer who couldn't care less because they're looking for someone with good Java.

At your age, which appears to be around 24, I think most companies would be interested in your previous work experience so far and what you've done in the short space of time since you graduated (assuming you attended university/college).

Re:Honesty....

Well first of all, corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, not to anyone else.

Actually this isn't the problem with corporations today. The problem is that employees are not responsible for the companies actions. Instead, corporations are now "people" who are responsible for the actions that the employees take. There's an obvious disconnect there; the "person" responsible is not the person actually doing the crime.

Corporations typically have a hierarchical structure just so that somebody can be held accountable. If a corporation does something illegal then the person behind that decision needs to be tried for it, not the corporation. If the company hires somebody to do something illegal then the person authorizing that is responsible and the people who knew about it are accessories and the people who found out later and did nothing are accessories after the fact.

This is the real problem today. For example, Microsoft gets convicted of criminal restraint of trade and there are absolutely no personal consequences for the people authorizing it and perpetrating it. There are plenty of people in MS who knew of this and would not have allowed it to happen if their own butt was on the line.

Re:Honesty....

You completely miss the point. Its obvious that MS's (and most other corporations) sole goal is to maximize profit. The question is- should we, as society, allow such organizations to exist?

Absolutely. Entities that exist for a sole purpose are inherently "trustworthy" by the pragmatic meaning of "trust"...they are transparently predictable. Predictable is good.

Beyond a certain size, a corporation can no longer be anthropomorphized to an entity capable of emulating human behavior. They have no "soul", no "conscience", nor any sense of "good" and "evil". They are simply successful or unsuccessful, determined by the only metric with any meaning to them...money.

We find corporations to be useful entities, but we cannot expect them to police themselves, because it is simply not in their nature. That we must accept, while also accepting and upholding the task to monitor and contain them. If we shirk that responsibility, that's society's fault, not the corporations'.

If one wants to see what happens when a corporation attempts to police itself, one must examine any large socialist government. They are certainly not the first organization one would call upon if one wished to actually accomplish any useful work.

Is it a wise move to allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power in what basicly amounts to a sociopathic organization?

A wolf is not a sociopath; it's just a wolf. The sociopaths are the citizens who do nothing while a wolf behaves as wolves do.

Re:Trust

If my exgf is a slut, and every time I get back with her she cheats on me, I know that her behavior is predictable and she has one primary goal. She is predictable, but definitely not trustworthy.

She's completely trustworthy, you have just misplaced your trust. If you trust in her to be faithful, you made the mistake of mis-evaluating her actions. If you trust she is gonna cheat on you, you have accurately nailed the behavior and can develop contingencies for dealing with that behavior.

Trust is just a projection of your expectations in relation to your perceptions.

Re: Honesty....

I think that you, too, miss the point. Even though corporations may be pseudo-persons with no sense of morality and with the sole purpose of amassing money and power, I think it is important to note that they are, indeed, pseudo-persons. They have not actually any consciousness, will or deciding ability in themselves. Normally, that task is carried out by actual humans.

Somewhere, deep inside the twisted corridors in Redmond, some person must have actually thought of the idea to hire third parties to edit Wikipedia. He must also have presented it to his boss (unless it was some boss who thought of the idea himself), who in turn must have ordered someone to carry out the plan. Shouldn't an obviously unethical plan such as this have been stopped at some point in this chain? Shouldn't that boss figure have some kind of conscience which should have stopped him from doing this? Another problem may be the current inability (real or imagined) of "peons" in a corporation to themselves stop such plans when being ordered to carry them out. Generally, I believe that the lack of personal responsibility for actions being carried out "in the name of a corporation" is the real culprit.

Also, aside from the ethical standpoint, must they not have realized that this would leak out?! I mean, this cannot be considered positive PR, right?

Re: Honesty....

I think it is important to note that they are, indeed, pseudo-persons. They have not actually any consciousness, will or deciding ability in themselves. Normally, that task is carried out by actual humans.

There's an interesting view emerging that it's actually more accurate to view a corporation as a self-aware entity. The reason that corporations routinely engage in behavior that would be considered obscene by a human being is not that there just happen to be a few "bad eggs" in positions of power, but rather that the structure of a corporation encourages and extracts bad behavior from otherwise reasonable human beings.

There are endless examples of this, and an intriguing discussion in Wade Rowland's Greed, Inc.. It's convenient for corporations to blame "bad egg" individual employees, because people can be easily replaced, and ignores the reality that the true root of the problem is systemic.

Re: Honesty....

Technically you are correct - corporations are non-thinking entities made up of thinking humans. However they are a perfect example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Of complex, sometimes unpredictable behaviour arising out of systems with relatively few, simple rules.

Anybody that has worked for or with large corporations knows that they have a unique "culture" that is different from one to another. This culture largely survives changes of individuals within it. It is hard to identify where the culture "comes from". There is no single source of it - in some corporations you could replace the CEO and his direct reports and the culture would not change in the short or medium term (or ever cf: government).

One analogy would be the human brain. Many brain cells - individually very simple - governed by few simple imperatives generating very complex behaviour which is hard to pin down to any single brain cell (or even small group of cells).

"Mob rule" is another example of this kind of thing - where behaviour arises that exceeds that which any of its individual elements would necessarily countenance.

Here's a thought...
If evolutionary pressure was enough to select for "morality" and "ethical behaviour" in individuals, could it be that over time, these new entities will eventually evolve these traits as well?

Re:Honesty....

What are you saying? That because a corporation wants to make money that we shouldn't criticise them when they're caught acting unethically?

That's just stupid.

Re:Honesty....

what they're "supposed" to.

And murderers are doing what they're "supposed" to, after all, thats why we call them "murderers". Who decided that the profit motive was supposed to be superior to honesty? I think you'll find that fraud is not accepted in standard definitions of "free market" or "Capitalism", so where has the idea that lying for money is permissible come from?

Re:Honesty....

what the hell is the marketing department doing? Are they *that* ethically challenged?

As a matter of fact, yes they are. Corporations (and therefore their various departments), by definitions, only have in mind the interest of their shareholders, therefore if being unethical furthers their interest and a corporation can get away with it, they will be.

I suggest you watch a documentary called The Corporation [amazon.com]: they very clearly demonstrate that the laws governing corporations make then sociopathic by nature.

Re:Honesty....

If you read the article, that guy was hired to make technical correction in the Wikipedia entries. Why would you expect that only MS PR people should do it?

The quotes around the work "Correct" in the summary headline is just another Slashdot spin...

Re:Honesty....

excuse me, did anyone ask you to get in the way of a good ms bashing opportunity?

Re:Honesty....

what the hell is the marketing department doing?
Are they *that* ethically challenged?
Or is it that they are *that* desperate to be cool and loved?
How about a policy of honesty

Their job.
Yes.
That's their job.
That would be the anti-thesis of marketing.

Re:Honesty....

How about a policy of honesty and if there is something that you want, then why not have your Microsoft PR department make the edits? Is that too obvious? It would certainly present other ethical dilemmas, but at least it would be more honest than hiring supposed "impartial" third parties to do your work for you.

You did read the link, right?

This isn't some random anonymous goofball being paid to insert text Microsoft gives him; he's an (apparently) recognized figure, not especially MS-friendly, being paid to provide corrections in his area of expertise, with his reputation on the line. I'd trust that more than edits made by the PR people. He certainly made his case a lot more credibly than the Slashdot submitter made his.

I mean, I can still see where there are questions to be raised, but the write-up here is completely dishonest.

Re:Honesty....

At least said third party has explicitly stated that he's being paid by Microsoft. And at least Microsoft has not barred him and others they are paying from doing the same. How much more honesty can you ask for? If Microsoft told a bunch of PR people to edit Wikipedia, they'd probably not have told anyone, and no one would've known Microsoft was paying PR people to subtly skew articles in their favor.

Third parties are usually where corporations finds impartiality, even if the third party receives a cheque from the company on a monthly basis. Most other industries use a third party for impartiality--e.g. auditing in the financial industry, security audits, etc. are essentially asking a third party to review existing data for disrepencies. Why can't Microsoft do the same with their products and/or standards?

Bit of FUD Himself

For example, in the Wikipedia entry, it currently mentions that "the members of ISO have only 31 days to raise objections", the implication being that this is far too short a time; yet, if I understand matters correctly, ODF was submitted in a fast-track procedure that didn't even allow these kind of objections.

That would be because respondants have had over 4 years to respond to the OASIS specification. Since it's already a standard that has been reviewed by the industry, the ISO committee can choose to adopt it on a fast-track as a way of putting their own stamp of approval on it.

Re:Bit of FUD Himself

How long has the ECMA-376 spec been available to the public for review? How long was the OASIS ODF standard available to the public before being published as an ISO Standard?

Answer: 1 Month vs. 1.5 years respectively.

So, Microsoft rams a specification through the ECMA in a quarter of the time as ODF was moved through OASIS, significantly increases the volume of the standard over their original specs, at least one major partner voted against it [heise.de], then gives everyone exactly one month to review it before it becomes an international standard, and somehow that makes the industry a bunch of whiners for complaining about having only one month to review their standard. Right.

Microsoft is better than Linux

Microsoft has *always* been better than Linux.

Isn't this just spam using robots?

I mean, seriously, hiring someone to contribute to Wiki and pretend they're an objective source when they're actually paying to publish your FUD and distorted views, is akin to spam from zombie computers.

Can they do it? Apparently.

Should they do it? No.

For or Against?

So is the submitter for or against Microsoft's corrections? I was unable to gauge his tone.

Re:For or Against?

The tone I was getting was that he was in favour of real corrections, cutting out the plain untruths that the Wikipedia entries are garnering. If he does this in the name of truth & correct reporting, I'm all for it. Bear in mind you'll be able to track what changes he makes and if you don't think they're accurate, you can make your own edits back.

NPOV

Wouldn't either side of these debates violate the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia? Aren't all of those opinions supposed to be deleted?

Dear Microsoft

I'm available for hire. Please send me a Ferrari notebook, Office 2007, and a contract to sign away my soul. Did I mention I also blog?

No wonder there's a problem ...

... if the average Wikipedia author is as biased as this article summary. "Corrections favorable to them?" Corrections are corrections! In TFA, you'll see that there are errors in the OOXML article (as there are in many of them) and Microsoft enlisted a pretty unbiased guy to find them. If anything, one would expect him to be biased against OOXML and for ODF considering that only free time has kept him from contributing to ODF.

Insightful my eye.

>>It doesn't matter. What they're doing is underhanded and shady.

Howso? From TFA:
"I think I'll accept it: FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see."

Wow -- that sounds shady AND underhanded. No wait -- not even close. He admits he's been hired, AND he is only going to correct errors. Wow. Sounds EVIL.

>>1. There is public information Microsoft doesn't like.

No, this is public MIS-information that Microsoft doesn't like on a PUBLIC forum. They have every right to correct those errors, but they've gone one step further and hired a third party to examine the validity of the articles and correct any errors he finds.