Talk:Microsoft/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Pictures and such

Overall, I found this to be a well written article, thanks to everyone for their hard work. One request: can we get some other pictures besides the numerous shots of various MS campuses? That motif got old by the second one. I know we need some pictures and what we need may be hard to come by. I recommend replacing most of those campus entrance pictures with some good old fashioned screen shots of the various programs and/or their splash screens. I think program screen shots would allow for a better reader connection to the article. "Oh yeah! I used that one in college!" For example, I literally shuddered when I saw the blue screen of death picture. Saw a lot of that screen in years gone by. Looking for more of a "Oh yeah!" than a "Who cares." The trouble, I am guessing, is finding said pics. I will take a look around. Would appreciate it if anybody can post ones they may have or find. Thoughts? Am I off base here?Thepearl 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that was really hard. Nearly every screen shot I was looking for already exists on Wikipedia in various sub articles. Can we reuse pictures from these pictures? My thoughts, replace at least a 3 (of the 6) campus photos with some screen shots. Perhaps in a progression for comparison: ex. Windows 3.0 next to Windows 98 next to XP? And also a pic of the current Board of Directors? I know layouts are sacred, so I won't make any changes without some consensus. Thepearl 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree! I was scrolling down the page, and I'm like, who cares what the Microsoft Timbuktoo Whatever Center looks like? The current photos tell us very little about Microsoft, other than that they like big, shiny buildings, rather than telling us about their big shiny Operating Systems, etc. I think what might make sense is to replace and add some images in the article, then at the bottom, put a bunch of pictures, like this (scroll to the bottom). Also, maybe an updated photo of the Redmond place, instead of an acient one? Anyone who lives in Washington? Anyhow, if no one goes ahead and adds anything, I will make some changes when I get the chance, unless someone objects to this. --Tech Nerd 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

People may want to check out this page This has all of the screenshots of Microsoft Windows that are on Wikipedia, so it could be helpful for finding images if we ever when we add and/or change images on this page. --Tech Nerd 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added four screenshots - Windows 98, XP, Vista, Office 2007. Add other images, folks! --Tech Nerd 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Really nice Article

However, obviously its appearance on the main page has caused the stock to tank over 2%. You guys have got to watch your incredible influence. User:thechosenone021 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverse engineering & unfair advantage

In the article the reference Chen, Raymond, "What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?", The Old New Thing, 16 October 2003. Is used to assert that the office team was reverse engineering windows calls. Now I've read the article & it looks like what he's saying is that 3rd Parties were doing the reverse engineering not MS insiders - I'd change it but I think we need more concensus. Thoughts? Megamanic 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. To be honest what is there now is really filling up the article - at the least I'd like to trim it down to a single sentence (something like "Novell alledged XXX in a suit which is also alluded to by XXX from Microsoft Press"). RN 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does clog up that section, however this controversy is central to the story of the rise of the MS apps division. Maybe it needs to be in a different section - linked to by this section. I'm old enough to remember the massive disappointment when Wordperfect for Windows came out - I was a huge WP fan in DOS days but Word just blew it away in the Windows arena. Same with Lotus 123. It's hard to believe two big companies (and they were huge circa 1990) could so comprehensively drop the ball and produce sucky Windows versions of their apps without some external cause, and as BOZOSLIVEHERE points out people were reverse engineering the APIs because there wasn't any comprehensive documentation - stuff which Maguire clearly indicates that Microsoft Apps team members had access to by talking to the graphic library leads. It's therefore not unreasonable to conclude that MS was leveraging its O/S division's primacy in order to give Apps a head start as Novell will be asserting in court... Megamanic 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - I had a go and it and just made the claim. We can make a seperate subarticle if we need it. - here's what was removed:

but internal sources at Microsoft assert that the Office team did not have access to the Windows source code at the time, and relied on reverse engineering instead.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Although this assertion is debunked by no lesser source than a Microsoft insider writing for Microsoft Press which includes numerous examples of internal communication and requests between different teams inside Microsoft - access that developers from other companies simply would not have had.

RN 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "microsoft"

Apart from the famous company, there is also the term "microsoft" in William Gibson's "Neuromancer". Seeing as this book is considered cyberpunk classics, I think it's worth having its little article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yvu (talk • contribs) .

Neuromancer references that term. SchmuckyTheCat 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No more uncited statements!

This massive article now officially has no marked uncited statements. Yay! Doogie2K (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation there! Yeah, I fact-checked this thing several times, but I do see that I missed the mention about it being the most "widely used" OS along with the not-so-precise reference about the Office defense. Also, I forgot to mention the early Microsoft Basic stuff. All good points. :) RN 01:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can really only take credit for the GameSpot citations. Wikifairies must have fixed the rest. :) Doogie2K (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MikeRoweSoft

Didnt Microsoft sue this guy named Mike Rowe and his company MickRowSoft for supposedly stealing the Microsoft name then stop sueing him and give him an xbox and games and supposedly now there taking over his company ? - Matt Husdon

At first I thought, that's ridiculous. But, it's true: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/26/mikerowesoft.settle.ap/ Deco 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Current State of Page

Can somoene please fix the page. What appears to be a side bar has ended up strewn accross the page.

Not the logo again?

It appears the logo is back to the worst possible -- a very low quality svg image which reveals bulges and distortions when viewed at a larger size and also appears to be missing the (R) sign requested by microsoft. I once replaced this with an accurate vector edition of the logo extracted directly from a microsoft pdf poster, but it was later believed that this was a copyright violation, and the svg was rendered as png, which was then used. Now it seems we're back to square one.

SVG is a great, flexible image format and I, as well as Wikipedia, encourage its usage, but please, let's put quality first. Let's either make it the accurate svg or the accurate png but not this inaccurate, what appears to be software traced from a low-resolution raster image, svg. I can upload either of the accurate logos. Acdx 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The png one is back now. ---Majestic- 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Acdx 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Criticisms should not be segregated into their own section or article but dispersed throughout an article according to our NPOV policy. Criticism of Microsoft should be integrated into this article accordingly. 72.60.227.118 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read the POV fork guideline for the "Criticism of..." section(s). As long as a summary and link to the criticism article is provided in the main article and rebutting material is allowed in the criticism article, then by current guidelines, there is no need for the merge (especially given the considerable size and limited overlap of both articles independently). There is discussion of "criticism articles" and a suggested guideline at Wikipedia:Criticism and you're welcome to argue violation of WP:NPOV on the Criticism of Microsoft article independent of your merge request, but since your basis for discussing the merge is that existence of a criticism article is NPOV and current guidelines allow for it (and discussion of the new policy to remove criticism articles is beginning to move towards keeping them to help isolate opinion from fact), your merge request is ill-advised. ju66l3r 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest ideally wikipedia could do that. However, the fact is that there is SOOOO much information that it is basically impossible to do it all in one article - and right now things look really good, especially compared to pretty much every other article. One thing we could do is rename "Criticism of Microsoft" "Microsoft controversies" if that is less POV. However, as stated, it is basically impossible to merge the two together - they are already way past the usual length limits on their own. If someone does manage to do this it would be pretty neat, but keep in mind this is a featured article and that is a good article - and you risk loosing the quality of both if you were to do so. DEFINATELY work on it in userspace and get consensus before trying to put here. So, no merge for now I say. RN 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's common to name pages that have criticisms of something "Criticism of *". I don't see how a page title that shows the content will contain criticism is POV, it's just a good description of the content. POV = Microsoft has bad software (or Microsoft has bad software because of X). NPOV = John Doe, a student at MIT has stated that Microsoft has bad software because of X. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, I wasn't saying it was POV - just a suggestion to stave off requests like this. Some do frown upon criticism articles/sections and prefer them to be inline with the rest of the article(s), so if possible to make all camps happy that would be ideal :). It certainly isn't my personal opinion though, and as it is right now I don't really see a problem - the criticism article itself is NPOV in tone but lacks Microsoft's response to most of the criticisms. Especially a merge would probably destroy both articles so I would of course oppose it strongly. RN 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's too much text in this article for a merger to be feasible. -/- Warren 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I aggree: too much info- on both articles- to merge. Although i think the points about including some criticism on points through microsoft is valid. A limited amount? or/ and a link to criticisms? cilstr 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, way too much content and is an adequate article on its own. Mambo Jambo 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger.

Wikipedia:Criticism states the following about POV forks: "This can only be done if a split of the main article is unavoidable due to article size, and if splitting off the reception history is seen as the most appropriate way to perform that split (so: subject to consensus of wikipedians, preferably discussed on the "main" article's talk page prior to the split);"

There is some debate on whether Criticism articles should exist at all. In my opinion, for some topics, there is too much criticism for it to be adequately covered in the article on the topic, and in such cases, Criticism articles are needed to offer sufficient coverage of criticism. For example, Microsoft and Wikipedia are very controversial, so we need articles like Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Wikipedia to cover the criticism in sufficient depth. In such cases, not having a Criticism article would not be NPOV, as this would not provide a balanced view. If a topic is controversial, the reader should be made aware of this, even if the article does not take a stance.

As both the Microsoft and Criticism of Microsoft articles are very long, it is obvious that we need the Criticism of Microsoft article to offer sufficient coverage of the criticism. As someone mentioned, Microsoft is a featured article, and Criticism of Microsoft is a good article (I nominated it), and we should consider many factors before merging the articles.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Hi. Seperate articles should be created as it is too big!--Johnhardcastle 12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Financial Numbers

They were put in there, based on Microsoft's latest financial earnings statements (reported revenue of $41.xx billion), so on, yet were reverted.

Why?

If I reverted it, I probably reverted it because it messed up the annual report reference. Also, they're 2006 annual report doesn't appear to be out yet [1], which is what is used for the main reference for numbers like that here. Beyond that though, if you can update the numbers by all means please do just remember to update all the number mentions, references etc. if possible. RN 04:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Their numbers were stated in a press release that was available at Microsoft's PressPass area (IIRC) as part of their earning statements at the beginning of July. Revenue, Net Revenue, and Operating Profit were all updated, but later reverted. Annoying.

Sorry about that - I just updated it. RN 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed MS business culture paragraph

This was removed by someone mid-july:

Employees of Microsoft are expected to be comfortable with ambiguity in that they may not, for example, know with any degree of certainty when a product will ship, what it will be called, or what features will be included. Managers at Microsoft are expected to have a general attitude of long-term strategic wariness, to be ready for any challenge from the competition or the market, and to keep in mind that being the largest software company in the world is not seen as a form of safety or a guarantee of future success. For instance, future competitors could rise from other industries, or computer hardware companies could try to become less dependent on Microsoft, or consumers could decide not to upgrade their software as often.

I admit it drags on/advertish... so just noting it for now. RN 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Under "Controversy":

"Ironically, by attempting to reduce complexity in products, Microsoft has also come under fire for making its products more accessible to those lacking advanced technical knowledge of computers and software through these same wizards, which some believe has allowed people to perform complex tasks without any underpinning knowledge."

Microsoft has come under fire for this? Why not just replace the sentence with "Microsoft has come under fire for making computers easier to use, which some believe has allowed people to do things they otherwise couldn't?", in order to bring out the absurdness of the statement?

I fail to see how this is even rooted in factual reality. It seems more like someone decided that there was a good place to throw in another anti-Microsoft comment, under the guise of "some believe that...", and stick it under the "Controversy" section. I say we can it.

192.88.124.201 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I've been bold and removed it, since I tried for 20 minutes to figure out how to make it more NPOV without success. Wyv 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Microsoft has come under fire for stealing GUIs and ease-of-use concepts wholesale, then marketing like it is their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.145.24 (talk • contribs)

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS BY TYPING ~~~~ Thank you. Travb (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Ironically, by attempting to reduce complexity in products, ... ...has allowed people to perform complex tasks without any underpinning knowledge." I've never heard this (but then again, who am I?), and it does sound a little silly. Something similar...I HAVE heard people criticize MS for making interfaces so complex that a clunky wizard has to be grafted on top of it just so normal people can accomplish a task. If anybody wants that in there, go find a source and have at it.

--Jason C.K. 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page has recently faced vandalism. Someone please verify which is the better version. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The version without vandalism is better. Pat Berry 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

At around 4:59 PM on January 9 2007, I saw the Microsoft page. I hit refresh, then it only said an insult ot MICROSOFT Corporation.

Add Info

Could someone add information about the early use of the mouse by microsoft, how they were the first major group to use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert1991 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by "major group" and "use". And explain why that information belongs here instead of in the mouse (computing) article. Pat Berry 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

redirect

shouldent M$ redirect here and not a page about symbol subsitution in writing??Shinigami Josh 08:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is vandalized. I recommend it be cleaned up. (I'm at school, so I can't)--Dreyfus 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read through it and I agree, it has numerous mistakes and even some dodgy links and references, it needs to be cleaned up. --Revrant 07:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some of the vandalism went unspotted. I noticed that the heading for the "2000-2004: Legal issues, XP and .NET" subsection of the History section has been removed. I'm not sure if Microsoft is still FA-quality. If you agree with me, you could request it be delisted.

There have been 10 vandal edits within 24 hours. Therefore, I will request that the article be semi-protected. That should stop the vandalism. While it is semi-protected, please check for any vandalism that slipped through the cracks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Open Specification Promise?

Sorry if this post is wrong or I missed a detail, I don't do this often, I'm not familar with it.

I read an article on this elsewhere, but Wikipedia doesn't have any information on it, I was going to try and request an article for this [2] since the Virtualization standard(Rather big news seen here [3]) was added, and I think that makes it worthy of some kind of notice, but then I wondered if it deserved it's own article or perhaps should it be edited into the Microsoft one, thoughts?--Revrant 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

in external links wononova.com should be moved to blogs

This is a blog i.e. wononova.com not a news site, it should be categorised as such.

Geneticflyer 14:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Geneticflyer

Novell's Suse Linux and MS

zdnet article here: [4]. MS plans to help Novell's Suse linux! 70.111.218.254 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First they will cooperate then they will screw them over and out. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. Electron9 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

microsost (tm)

Hey guys, there must really be a good reason for banning the above logo on da wikipedia. If we cant use it then which one r we gonna use? ? --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Page Smaller

I shortened the page, but I think there should be a history section. Don't know what to say, though.Cjcamilla 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

HEY!!!

HEY!! LOOK AT THE LOGO!

User ArgMachine from Spanish Wikipedia

• 190.48.199.190 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what about it? —The Great Llama^moo? 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Layout

Could somebody please break up the introductory paragraph of this article into several separate paragraphs? As it is right now it's very cluttered and difficult to read. 68.52.242.229 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There must be a mistake

The opening line says "Microsoft Corporation, (NASDAQ: MSFT, HKSE: 4338) is a multinational computer technology corporation with global annual revenue of US$44.28 billion" -- BILLION, yet the side info bar about Microsoft has its revenue, operating income, and net income as MILLION. Which is the correct one? I vote billion!

No mistake - the numbers in infobox show thousands of millions - which is the same as billions. Wikiolap 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Upon reading the criticism section, which by its very nature is not NPOV, I can't help but think that criticism of Microsoft products belongs on pages related to those products, other than in a very generic sense of there being criticism on those products. Legitimate criticism in this article seems to me to be more related to Microsoft corporate criticism. Anyone agree? 12.207.87.61 02:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Criticism section is overblown. There is already a special article dedicated to it, so just a link to it should be enough. Just like there is simply a link to History of Microsoft under the History section. So unless somebody opposes it, I propose to make Criticism and History to be consistent. Wikiolap 07:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been 5 days with no comments on this issue. I will wait for couple days more, and if then there are no more comments, I will have to conclude that there is an agreement. Wikiolap 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - it is done now. Wikiolap 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversity under Corporate Affairs ?

Does anybody else find it strange that Diversity section is listed under Corporate Affairs ? I think it could be better placed under Business Culture, right next to the paragraph about employee donations.

Abramoff?

Regarding this line in the intro:

'Microsoft utilized the firm of Preston Gates and Ellis who employed Abramoff, a lobiest now associated with the culture of corruption within the Bush administration.'

There is so much wrong with this: 1) Is it relevant that the law firm employed Abramoff? There doesn't appear to be any clear connection between MS and Abramoff 2) Is it true? Abramoff was more of a congressional scandal; his ties to the Bush administration were pretty weak. 3) Is it POV? Obviously, someone is trying to make a political point here. The "culture of corruption" here is a pretty POV stance.

I'm removing the comments about Abramoff. Jsrduck 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back a month

I reverted the article back to about November 25, before people came along and demolished half the article. Look, if you're interested in applying Wikipedia:Summary style article size reductions to the article, that's fine, but please don't leave behind entirely empty sections. This is not the correct way of doing summary style, and in this case of this article – which as a Featured Article is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work – is completely unacceptable. I've restored some of the other changes made between November 25 and now, but not all of them. -/- Warren 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone had split the article into sub articles, they just didn't do a good job at it. This article does need the two sub articles, History of Microsoft and Microsoft Product Divisions, however, because it is rather long. Someone just needs to write a good summary for the two sections. Dustinr88 07:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye. It's not an easy task... whoever takes it on will have to ensure that no multiply-used references are broken. -/- Warren 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the person to make the huge change, and I think it was a great idea, since it was tagged for being too long. I agree that someone whould make a summary for both sections, but all info should have its own article.68.194.46.192 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1992–1995: Domination of the corporate market

Domination is a pretty strong term, that implies a negative point of view. I think this should be changed to something like "Ubiquity in the market" or some such. Even "Market Share."

Should the "Microsoft.com" and "Microsoft in fiction" sections be removed?

When several sections were splitted into sub-articles, I was considering requesting a Featured Article review. Fortunately, they were restored.

However, two sections - "Microsoft.com" and "Microsoft in fiction" - seem to be superflous. Should they be removed?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Logo for 'Microsoft' Article?

Seeing Microsoft has recently changed their slogan to "Your Potential. Our Passion.", wouldn't it be helpful to change the logo with the new slogan?

'Image:Microsoft logo YPOP.gif' may be used as a example. Does anyone agree?

--Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 10:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say “no,” simply because on Microsoft’s front page they have the two items separated. Also, on most of their pages, the Microsoft® logo appears alone, without the trademarked slogan. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. If I get one more opposing comment, I will ask a administrator to delete the image. Thanks. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Definite no from me per WP:LOGO which states "Logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not." Alexj2002 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: A logo is a logo and a slogan is a slogan. Both are separate entities. Ishmael Rufus 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Forrester report

Much more recently in 2006, a study conducted by Forrester Research refutes these claims, stating that it found that after a year of studying Windows and several Linux distributions, Windows had the fewest vulnerabilities and that "Microsoft was the only vendor to have corrected 100% of the publicly known flaws during the study's time period."

I think that in the interest of openness in journalism, there should be mentioned along with this quote that the conclusions of this report, though not necessarily the raw data, is often disputed. For example, the makers of the various Linux distributions involved in this study criticized the Forrester report for not taking into account the severity of the various bugs found. Novell released a statement about this that can be found at http://www.novell.com/linux/security/forrester.html. I think it would be good to link to this in the article. Crashsystems 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)crashsystems

There is a slight problem with that, though. It looks like (A) they’re comparing an operating system to a distribution of software included within an operating system, and (B) somehow looking at vulnerabilities from a different point of view. Looking at the information from US-CERT for the entire year of 2006, Microsoft was the #1 source of vulnerabilities, with (if I recall correctly) Apple coming in second. And the Linux operating system itself had only 9 or something. Of the open source software on the list, Mozilla had the most (which doesn’t bode very well for them, but that’s life).

I don’t buy the Forrester information, personally. Experience with working with all sorts of operating systems and managing home and business networks tells me that it is better to stay away from Microsoft if at all possible. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism cleanup needed?

Notice "Microsoft COPULATION" instead of "Microsoft Corporation" and other dubious "information" :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.125.137 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Haha, the Apple fanboys are at it again. Those guys.

infobox cleaunp needed?

Under co-founder and executive chairmain in the infobox Salman Mohamed shows up. Im certain this is meant to be Bill Gates. However Bill Gates is the name under the code. Why is this happening. -Vmantva

That was just vandalism; it seems to have been fixed now. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent controversy on Microsoft versus Wikipedia

It's just been reported that Microsoft attempted to hire someone to "correct" Wikipedia articles related to Microsoft. See Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit. Should this go in the article, or is it too sensitive? Raymond Arritt 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not that important when you consider everything else Microsoft has done (in all respects). It might have a place in Criticism of Microsoft, though. -/- Warren 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"when you consider everything else Microsoft has done" - is it ironic? Pls mark.

Multiple IPs starting with 82... are vandalizing, trying to insert something about this. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not complete vandalism, but adding inappropriate contents. It's POV, self-reference, and unencyclopedic. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be referenced here. Jimmy Wales has already weighed in on the issue. ~ UBeR 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still not appropriate for this article. It would be self-referential, and POV. It can, however, go in Criticism of Microsoft. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could go in the Wikipedia article, as well. Its relevant to Wikipedia. Its not relevant to MS.216.199.44.170 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure things like that happen every couple of months; I don't know if it should go there. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too silly to be notable as of yet. Although it is interesting that CNN is reporting it on their website. Arrowhead2006 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the force microsoft will put on 'correcting' certain wikipedia articles, a notion of this incident would be necessary. Honestly, can we think of a reason why they might not want to promote their products (using true, biased, or fake content) in such a high traffic and highly accepted website? anonymous visitor, 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 reasons why I believe this controversy should not be in the main article:

1. It will make Wikipedia look vain as it is only interested in settling scores.

2. This event is not notable enough for the main Microsoft page.

WatchingYouLikeAHawk 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How much is Microsoft paying you cats to keep info on its pathetic info-manipulation techniques out of your swiftly-tilting web blog?

moreover, it's taken you until JANUARY 2007 to maybe consider that all sorts of rogue corporate bullshit was going up on the site? are you people sincerely retarded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.145.24 (talk • contribs)

-First of all, please sign your comments. Second, tone down the language a bit. It's totally unnecessary. Third, we are quite aware that rogue "corporate bullshit" has been going on on the site for quite some time, but this is much more high-profile... anything Microsoft does is high profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hojimachong (talk • contribs)

I find the irony in someone asking someone else to sign there comments, then forget to sign your own :) Travb (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to make that act of not signing an act of situational irony. lol. 71.227.137.251 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually know who the Wikipedian is?

RE: the microsoft/wikipedia controversy

"[Microsoft]] offered some monetary compensation to a blogger by name Rick Jelliffe to rectify the errors in the entries." [5]

Does anyone actually know the handle for Rick Jelliffe? How do we know that the editor(s) above are/is not the paid Wikipedian? Is there more bloggers that Microsoft has paid to edit wikipedia?

Remember the recent Microsoft laptop give away scandal? Microsoft simply didn't give one laptop to one blogger, but hundreds of laptops, to hundreds of bloggers.[6] Travb (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to this I read portions of the article and discovered major facts about certain aspects of Microsoft were missing. I've been in the industry for over 20 years and have studied many books on the subject. As well, I have been a voracious reader from throughout my career in computing. What troubles me is that there are so many things missing that I want to add/correct. I began to do so and found that my edits had been removed and then found the article locked. Does every article in wikipedia have such bland nitpick data that the reader can't get the true essence of what happened at Microsoft in the early years? Is this what Microsoft is having edited out? Is it proper to have Microsoft censoring the articles? Granted there's probably alot of vandalism, but there certainly is a lot of content that is missing. I would like to add/correct those early years portions and some of the more recent content such as the recent lawsuit loss by Microsoft and their misconduct as stated by the Judge in the case. These important pieces of information seem blatantly missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo0909 (talk • contribs).

The article is semiprotected. You will be able to edit it after your account is active for a few days, or the article is unprotected. I don't know why your edits were reverted, but it might help if you explain them here first, and mention that in your edit summary. I don't know what you mean about "nitpick data". Finally, I don't think Microsoft wanted this article edited, but rather Ecma Office Open XML and OpenDocument. Superm401 - Talk 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rick turned it down.Wikidudeman 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Wikipedia Controversy Section

I have removed this section because it does not offer any criticism. It is simply an amalgamation of news reports on the issue. Unless someone can find some properly written criticism about this from an appropriate commentator, I see no reason for this to be in the article. --Rcandelori 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's right at all to remove it. First of all, it's a fact that any reader of the Microsoft entry in Wikipedia would reasonably be interested in...the fact that MS tried to influence Wikipedia. 2nd, facts don't need analysis in order to be included in an encylopedia. They just have to be relevant facts. 3rd, if you really want to quote written criticism, how about quoting the founder of Wikipedia? :P I think it should stay in...though I think really it wasn't too terrible a thing by MS. It would have been better if they'd simply exhorted their developer partners (w/out paying them) that if they cared about the standard they should correct any errors they saw on Wikipedia. But at least in offering to pay the guy they chose a non-partisan, told him only to "correct" things, and weren't asking to approve his changes first. So, relevant, not so good of them, but not so horrible. Unless you can make a case that this was POV, unverifiable (in which case a citation notice before deletion would've been appropriate), or non-encyclopedic, it belongs in the article.

--Jason C.K. 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I agree here. I would rather see information confirmed by a news source as opposed to voiced criticism on someone’s blog—after all, a blog is not something that can be considered to be worthy unless it vigorously cites information from other sources and points that information out. Most blogs don’t do that.

That having been said, the section is noteworthy and should be included. It looks like that this section is starting to move from something that is aggrivating a few select people into an edit war. Let’s not do that. If it is correct information and it is relevant to Microsoft, then it belongs in the article. It doesn’t need to be anything major, nor does an entire section need to be devoted to it, I think, but I do think that the information should be present in the article nonetheless. —Michael Trausch ^{User page•talk} 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of facts can be characterized as "correct information ... relevant to Microsoft." Enough to fill dozens of books and thousands of magazine articles. My point is that this particular piece of information appears to be here primarily because it is a recent event, and it has a connection to Wikipedia, and not because it is singularly notable in the 30-year history of this company. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Right now, this factoid takes up significantly more room in the article than, for example, the reference to the first release of Windows in 1985. Information should be included in the Microsoft article if it's significant to the company's history, not just because it was in the news last month. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this, as well. I don’t think that it needs to take up much space at all. I think that really, a cursory mention of the event is all that is needed. It is certainly one of the more notable things that they’ve done in terms of censorship and editing of material related to thim, which I think—and mind you, this is just my own personal opinion—is an extremely important and relevant fact when it comes to any entity, regardless of any informationally based relationships that are created on the basis of the information.

In any case, I think that it is relevant here, but it does not require a great deal of fanfare or space or anything like that. There should probably be a single section where such things are mentioned in two sentences or less and left at that. —Michael Trausch ^{User page•talk} 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism of the reliability of wikipedia articles is that people with an axe to grind will bias the content. This attempt by MS is well known. If we simply ignore it, it makes it seem like we are trying to hide something. The explanation shows how such malicious edits are detected and supports wiki as a decent source of info to start. We should not censor content that may make us look Chivista 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the incident is widely enough known that omitting it would raise eyebrows. It should be mentioned but need not be discussed exhaustively. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Without offering any opinion on whether this section should be included in this article (as opposed to, say, an article on Wikipedia-related "controversies"), I think one of Rcandelori's points was that, as this is currently written, there is no criticism. In other words, while "cka3n cusses like a sailor." might be a relevant fact, it isn't criticism. "Jason C.K. has accused cka3n of cussing like a sailor.", on the other, is criticism. So, to include this in the criticism section, there should really be references to some of the critiques of Microsoft related to this affair.Cka3n 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. Though if the fact isn't considered inherently bad by nearly everyone, then neither is accusing someone of it. For example..."cka3n believes the world is round"..."Jason C.K. has accused cka3n of believing the world is round." See, not criticism. OTOH, "cka3n tortures puppies"...a fact that is kind of inherently criticism (if it were true...I assume untrue, though I find no confirmation or denial on your user page ;) Anyway, point taken, stating a fact in the criticism section is not necessarily a criticism. So, someone quote someone notable who thinks this action was bad. I don't think too much should be written about this though...on the scale of "questionable corp. behavior", I'd rate this little controvery as relatively low importance...it's not like being found guilty of anti-trust violations or something. Speaking of which, how the heck is that not in this article (I know, off-topic)? Could there be a more notable piece of info about a U.S. corp. than that the gov't found them guilty of anti-trust? Talk about criticism of business practices :P Though I'll propose one of these days how to trim this main article's Criticism section...it doesn't need as much detail as it has about some of the things in it. Anyway, back to the wiki controversy, elsewhere on this talk page (split discussions :( someone said that the wiki controversy isn't notable enough for the main page...I don't know if it is or isn't...I'd be fine with whatever other people agreed to in that regard (that thread so far has been against it being in main article, I'm ok with putting it elsewhere).

--Jason C.K. 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... "quote someone notable who thinks this action was bad." Would you consider Jimbo Wales notable? Raymond Arritt 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article uses summary style and it is still over 100k to edit. This one single incident is not a summary or important enough to be in this article. There are several choices of sub-article where it is appropriate. SchmuckyTheCat 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to include this -- it's new, and it relates to Wikipedia. But it seems to me that this one incident is not particularly notable in the 30-year history of a large corporation. It's already mentioned in the Criticism of Microsoft article, where the reference seems to be more on-point. I don't see any indication that it's significant enough to include in the main Microsoft article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability can be a tough call, since it often takes a view from several years' distance to establish what's notable. The incident seems at least as notable as many other points in the article (like repeated mentions of an award from 14 years ago). Raymond Arritt 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not... what you're seeing is a bunch of hysterics whipped up by anti-Microsoft people, who will do anything... anything to make Microsoft look like they've done worse things than the established facts will back up. We get this kind of behaviour on Microsoft and Windows-related articles all the time, and it's a constant effort to keep the encyclopedia free of opinioneering & damage from people who can't control their vandalistic impulses. The slightly more evolved amongst this group will call it "censorship", but that's a constant criticism Wikipedia gets from fringe groups who don't like the fact that small minority views get sidelined or edited out completely. That's the WP:NPOV policy at work. -/- Warren 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Notability issue will be easier to resolve later, as Raymond arritt suggests (even if debate continues until then). In the meantime, however, it sounds like there is some agreement that, if it is included, it should be included in the form of someone's criticism. The Wales criticism would presumably be good, although given that this is a dispute ostensibly between Microsoft and Wikipedia, you'd prefer a third-party critic. As I'm of the exclude-it camp, I'll leave the inclusion of particular trenchant criticism to the inclusion advocates. Cka3n 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section, and I will continue to remove this section until someone gives a strong justification, rooted in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as to why it should be included here in the main article on Microsoft. It's absolutely NOT an important issue in the grand scale of things, especially considering it was one single person at Microsoft who made the offer, without approval from their manager, and the offer was turned down. That's the end of the story so far as Microsoft is concerned... Microsoft has done far worse things in its time, and it's important that we report on those things. Jim Douglas's points made above are spot-on. -/- Warren 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral to somewhat in favor of mentioning it. If it's left out there will doubtless be a steady stream of people who keep adding it back in, so keeping a brief mention could forestall future edit wars. (I'm not entirely convinced regarding the one-rogue-employee story; it smacks a bit too much of plausible deniability. But that's another issue for another day.) Raymond Arritt 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Before this long discussion ensued, I removed this section because it does not offer any criticism as per the title of the section in the article. While I doubt there is a need to have this situation in the main article, if it must be there - it should be under corporate criticism, with a fleeting mention at most. As many editors have already said, this is only an issue because it concerns Wikipedia directly. Regardless, the content should be encyclopaedic, not simply a summary of news reports. --Rcandelori 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a brief (one sentence) mention of the thing under the corporate criticism section, with a quote from Jimbo saying he was "very disappointed." In doing background research on this it's clear that it has generated sufficient press and public controversy to satisfy WP:N, both on its own as well as being a number of followup articles about the broader issue of paying for WP edits. Is it a Really Big Deal? Only time will tell. But for the moment a brief notice is appropriate. Raymond Arritt 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ehhhhhh...doesn't it seem like consensus/most opinion in 2 threads on this page is against having it in the main article?

--Jason C.K. 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After some further consideration, this issue should not be in the main article simply because it is not significant enough to warrant a mention in the main article. Given the dedication of an entire article to "Criticism of Microsoft", there need not be a repeated mention in the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcandelori (talk • contribs).

1. I do not believe that WP:RECENT provides conclusive justification for deleting the brief mention. That policy provides that, "The aim should not be to remove notable information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events." Surely there are other single sentences in the article less notable or otherwise more deserving of removal.

2. Likewise, I do not believe that the WP:NPOV#Undue weight provisions address this dispute. Those provisions, it strikes me, are to guide the inclusion or exclusion of minority views on disputed topics. As the main NPOV policy states, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly."

Here, the criticism of Microsoft is not (I presume) a distinctly minority view on some controversy. Instead, the argument for deletion of the Wales quote is that the controversy itself is not notable. (It may be, as suggested by another editor supra, that the critics believe the advocates' position stems from their distinctly minority view of the reprehensibility of Microsoft. However, that position is clearly not a distinctly minority position, as there are legions of Microsoft critics. Moreover, as much as possible, I believe it is the text that should be addressed, not the perceived authorial motivations.)

3. I am definitely against an extended treatment of the episode, and I am inclined to oppose including even a brief reference, given the inclusion of the incident elsewhere on wikipedia.

4. If some text is to be included, I think the quote from Jimbo, while not as meaningful as a quote from a third-party critic, is fair evidence of criticism.

5. I think Raymond Arritt was correct: "Is it a Really Big Deal? Only time will tell."

6. While my opposition to inclusion appears to put me in the majority here on the talk page for exclusion, the editing activity to date proves the lack of consensus ("Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.").

Accordingly, I propose that both the Fors and the Againsts agree to abide by the temporary inclusion of the brief reference. (Feel free to flog me with that comment by reviewing the true trivialities and errors which surely populate my contributions.) If we permit the inclusion of the brief sentence now (thereby avoiding any further reversion spatting as well as pretermitting the possibility of more formal review of this issue), the article is only marginally affected. If there is no more discussion of the issue (in the "Real World", not here on the talk page) in a month or two, as I suspect will be essentially the case, then the argument for exclusion will be much stronger. (And the Fors, having agreed, if only by the silent assent, to this compromise, should then not be opposed to removal.)

While maintaining the opposing positions may certainly be faithful to principles, the sufficiently low stakes here seem to call for a temporary compromise. Indeed, the Consensus policy directs us to "Find a reasonable (if temporary) compromise" to address disagreements over reversion.

Cka3n 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just copy in the points I made earlier; I think this still pretty much covers it:

A lot of facts can be characterized as "correct information ... relevant to Microsoft." Enough to fill dozens of books and thousands of magazine articles. My point is that this particular piece of information appears to be here primarily because it is a recent event, and it has a connection to Wikipedia, and not because it is singularly notable in the 30-year history of this company. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Right now, this factoid takes up significantly more room in the article than, for example, the reference to the first release of Windows in 1985. Information should be included in the Microsoft article if it's significant to the company's history, not just because it was in the news last month.

In addition to that, the reference was added to a paragraph that talks about controversies on the level of multi-million dollar lawsuits. This, on the other hand, was one guy at Microsoft asking a blogger to look over some Wikipedia entries, correct any factual errors, and hey, while you're at it, we'll pay you for your time. This was not a big exposé in the Washington Post. (And just to short-circuit the conspiracy theorists, no, I'm not on Microsoft's payroll.) Look, guys, this is an encyclopedia article that attempts to describe Microsoft's overall significance and 30-year history. Can we all take a breath and grab a sense of perspective, please? There are a lot of legitimate and historically notable things to criticize Microsoft about -- this ain't one of 'em. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that this incident does not merit inclusion in this article. My point was that the advocates of removal apparently have not been able to bring the opponents of removal to consensus (although that may change if there are no further edits). Regardless of how "correct" we removal advocates might be, if we can't get the includers to concede to our position, our proper options are to seek more formal review or to come to a compromise (including, potentially, a temporary compromise). Repeated brute force reversions and threats to that effect are not the proper response to the dissent here. (I'm not saying Mr. Douglas has engaged in those practices, just that they are not the proper solution). Cka3n 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, I did start out with an open mind. I thought it was amusing when Jon Stewart mentioned it. Having read the details, I have to say, there's no "there" there. It was, at most, a one-day novelty story. I'm not defending Microsoft; they've been guilty of some seriously nasty behaviour, as demonstrated by a consent decree and a drawer full of multimillion dollar legal settlements. There is absolutely no way to argue that this is in any sense comparable, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments for inclusion. "People will include it anyway." Then revert it; we revert inappropriate edits all the time. "We don't know if it will ultimately be historically notable." Doesn't matter; at the moment, it's clearly not. If that changes, then we'll revisit it. I'm not enforcing my point of view here, and I'm not about to edit-war over it. But let's go about writing a solid encyclopedia article about Microsoft, as opposed to throwing in whatever seems interesting this week. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of sense in Jim Douglas' point above. In any case, Wikipedia is editable by anyone; so Microsoft's decision to pay someone to do it is not strictly a breach of any Wikipedian policy. You could argue about the problem of bias, but plenty of editors of the less-popular articles in this encyclopaedia have freely ground their axe against Microsoft as they see fit. This is a much exaggerated and overhyped issue that is really nothing in comparison to the countless antitrust and monopoly suits the company has had to endure and that are far more noteworthy in the main article.--Rcandelori 13:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Substantively, you may be right. But because this is wikipedia and because wiki has been the butt of charges of unreliability, failure to mention this incident may give a bad impression. It's just bad press to totally ignore it even if MS's otter acts may be more notable. We at least should mention or link this incident at the bottom of the MS article with a list of minor controversies to show that we have nothing to hide. Chivista 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But this is not about saving face with the public. It is about ensuring that this very well-written Featured Article does not descend into a battleground over a silly and unremarkable media-hyped event. Nothing illegal occurred and nor were any guidelines of Wikipedia breached. Writing an encyclopaedia necessarily requires that only major and notable information is included for length and readability purposes; other less important information, such as this, is relegated to sub-articles. In any case, the worry over bad impressions is misplaced as Wikipedian editors have not ignored this issue - they have simply written about it in Criticism of Microsoft where it rightfully belongs and there need not be a repeated mention in the main article. --Rcandelori 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• "because this is wikipedia and because wiki has been the butt of charges of unreliability, failure to mention this incident may give a bad impression." So far I'm still swayed by the leave-out folks, but the above is the one argument I wonder about. What if we cast it in different, exaggerated terms, let's see what people think: Encyclopedia Brittanica puts out a paper edition. It then becomes known that MS attempted to bribe someone to insert text (I know in wiki case it's said that no actual $ changed hands, and it's been presented as a much less partisan attempt). People wonder about MS' behavior, Brittanica's reliability, and how much this has happened before. So, next time Brittanica prints out their MS entry, do they mention that the subject of the entry attempted to compromise the integrity & objectivity (or at the least had a conflict of interest in their attempts to "help") of the very reference the reader is reading, or clarify that it failed, or that it wasn't too partisan an attempt? Certainly if MS tried to compromise Brittanica, that would have no place in the main article on wiki. Conversely, MS has been a little sneaky in regards to wiki, that probably has little place in Brit.'s entry (wiki has an easier choice here, we can link it elsewhere, with Brit. it's either totally in or totally gone), but does it become notable in the affected reference itself (wiki re: wiki or Brittanica re: Brittanica) simply because of the self-reference? If the reader is really going to want to know about this right up front, does it deserve mention? Discuss. I'm probably fine with any outcome of this whole topic. It is a relatively small thing in regards to MS (governmental lawsuits being much more serious)...and yet, it is still an issue. It's a small thing, yet it still says something about MS' behavior.

--Jason C.K. 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This one certainly is going around in circles. "Does it become notable in the affected reference itself (wiki re: wiki or Brittanica re: Brittanica) simply because of the self-reference?" Arguably so, but the present case is still notable even without the Wikipedia context. There are those who say it isn't notable, yet the incident has been widely discussed and has spurred a number of followup analyses of the effect of corporate manipulation of information. My assessment is that based on present knowledge it's sufficiently notable for a brief mention in the article. If everyone forgets about it in a month or two, it can be edited out; if it blows up into a major thing (which I don't expect, but nothing surprises me anymore) it can be expanded upon. Raymond Arritt 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• "the present case is still notable even without the Wikipedia context." Eh, not by my lights. I'm certainly no pro-MS bias here, and it still seems a tiny, tiny thing in comparison to everything else MS has done. If this were their only "bad" act, sure, put it in. Probably everyone will forget in a month, which means it never proved it's notability, but by then people will forget to remove it from the article. I'd only be for inclusion in the main article if someone felt strongly about the self-reference aspect (or if it blows up hugely in the next while, which won't happen).

--Jason C.K. 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that it should go. It's noteworthy that this consensus includes those who are not Microsoft partisans. (Full disclosure: I'm not pro- or anti-Microsoft, in the same way that I'm not pro- or anti-General Motors, Boeing, or most other large companies.) So, let's strike it unless future events reinforce notability. Raymond Arritt 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"...effect of corporate manipulation of information..." - This is a non-issue given that we have the ability to swiftly revert or remove biased information. People are treating this as if Microsoft is the only one to have attempted to sway the balance of opinion on Wikipedia. They are certainly not the first, nor the last to have done this which means it's completely unnecessary to place in the main article.

External Links : Blogs

I think you guys should add a link to http://www.microsoftisawesome.com/ this is a fan site for microsoft, this is relevant. On that note please remove the current link 'Microsoft Monitor' this is not Microsoft related, this just forwards to some other site. 198.45.18.20 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Although microsoftisawesome is a fan site, is there any particular reason why it should be linked to? I did a quick look around using google, and I could not really find any significant links or cites to it. Indeed, for all of these blogs, are they "written by a recognized authority"?

For significant links and cites try googling for 'links: microsoftisawesome.blogspot.com OR microsoftisawesome.com'. Even so I think this site is relevant to this article. (Much more so than, 'NASDAQ.com' a link to when Steve Ballmer opened the NASDAQ) Other news links seem only relative to the immediate present, maybe we should consider linking to a wikinews search for microsoft instead. Evanreiser 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I presume the Microsoft Monitor link merely needs to be updated to http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/toplevel/archives/cat_microsoft.html, although I didn't read the old Microsoft Monitor to know whether this one is the same.

Finally, is there any reason to have so many external links? Cka3n 06:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above, maybe it makes sense to condense the more temporal news articles with a link to wikinews for microsoft. Evanreiser 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have pruned the external links section, as it was getting far broader than the intended use of the section. Also, I searched google for links: microsoftisawesome.blogspot.com; there were less than 100 hits, and the overwhelming majority of those were links from aggregators or in comments apparently made by the site's authors/owners (e.g., Mr. Reiser, apparently). I didn't see anything meriting inclusion as a general external link (especially since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link repository). Cka3n 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think this is relevant to microsoft. Someone should add links to the microsoft communities sites as well198.45.18.20 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cka3n made a major change to the links section withough following the [major changes policy]. He did suggest his changes in the discussion page, but it was more of an announcement considering he went and changed whatever he wanted without anyone agreeing with him that so many relevant links should be removed. He cited a Wikipedia Link Policy in his change comment as his reason, but I could not find any such policy. I have replaced what I feel are valid, relevant links that anyone who was looking for information about microsoft would want to know and visit. Umopapisdnwi 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Umopapisdnwi, while I am not sure that I agree that my changes were major, and even if they were, I don't see what part of the major changes policy I violated (e.g., "If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page.", which I did, and "If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that.", which I did).

Nonetheless, I could certainly be mis-reading the major changes policy, and it wouldn't be my first mistake. So, I will make a more complete case for my changes here and wait for feedback (or some significant passage of time) before I make any changes to the main page.

I did feel that removing nearly all of the external links constituted a "major" change. The spirit of the Major Change policy as I read it is that " it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion" and wait for another person to agree, rather then to make large changes and wait for a lack of arguement. As wikipedia's policy in general is to promote addition and disuade deletion of information.Umopapisdnwi

While permitting the inclusion of external links, Wikipedia's External Links guideline (I apologize if the policy/guideline conflation confused anyone) suggests that the inclusion of any particular link needs to be justified. The guideline further states that "Links should be kept to a minimum." Clearly, the hurdle for the inclusion of links is one of Wikipedia's higher hurdles. As Wikimedia's Meta-Wiki states, "Wikimedia projects are not search engines or link repositories. They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page."

The External Links guideline further provides a list of links that should be included (the official homepage; a copy of the work, if applicable and permitted; other meaningful content which cannot be included in the article itself), a list of links which should be considered (professional reviews and web directories, if appropriate) (the listing also states that "Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis," but that is clearly not a category of links that should, for that reason, be considered for inclusion), and a much longer list of links normally to be avoided (which includes amongst its 13 entries: any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article, links mainly intended to promote a website, links to blogs and personal webpages, and except those written by a recognized authority).

Turning now the currently listed set of links: Of the Microsoft links, I have no objection to the inclusion of the link to Microsoft's homepage. Beyond that, though, I am not sure why any of the other links to Microsoft's website should be included. Indeed, it would be hard to justify why it would be those three (the update site, the update security site, and the international portal) out of the many, many similarly relevant, etc. webpages on Microsoft's website.

Of the General links, the Reuters link seems the most innocuous. Of the other two - a collection of free books from Microsoft and Microsoft Versus - the second certainly seems like it would be better used as a source for a citation (if it is to be used). Unless Microsoft's book project is relevant enough to include in the article text (in which case it too should be used as a source), I don't see why the first should be included.

Regarding the News links, I would first note that there is a link to the right side of the page there to the Wikinews for Microsoft news. That said, the Yahoo link seems the most innocuous as it provides a company profile. The CNN and Court TV links seems like they should either be relevant enough for article inclusion (and thus conversion to a source link) or not (and thus not meriting external link inclusion). The conference call transcripts is more difficult, but it seems to me that, like the links to Microsoft's international portal, it would be hard to justify the inclusion of this link of what is surely hundreds or thousands of links with similar or greater levels of importance and relevance.

• Microsoft — Official website - Should be included for obvious reasons.
• Microsoft Update — 'Official update site' - Is not readily accessible from www.microsoft.com, and is of critical use to any readers looking for information on updating their Windos OS.
• Microsoft Security Bulletins — 'Official security update site' - Also not readily available from www.microsoft.com and contains a great deal of information that would not quite fit on this page. Also, neither of these 2 pages would be appropriate on a site for an individual OS, as they pertain to all microsoft products, and as such are relevant to the companies services.
• Microsoft Worldwide Home — 'International Portal' - I could see the case for dropping this, as it is readily available from the main site

General

• Reuters — 'Microsoft Corporation Company Overview - Reuters' - This is relevant data about the company, that probably contains copyrighted information, an explicityly stated reason for inclusion by the wikipedia policy
• Techbooksforfree.com — 'Collection of free downloadable books available from Microsoft' - This link has similar reasons as the Reuters, but would probably be better worked into the article, however deleting it would preclude people with no knowledge of it from working it into the article, and would be detrimental to the article as a whole as a result.
• Microsoft Versus — 'Dissecting Microsoft' - This is rather involved analysis of Microsoft, and obviously not able to be worked into this article, the only reason for deletion of this link would be if someone felt it was not written in a nuetral pov, however the page has many citations (worked into the page, not at the bottom) and I felt it was relevant to the corporation.

News

• Yahoo! Finance — 'Microsoft Corporation Company Profile - Yahoo' - has a great deal of financial information that is not lisenced for use in the wikipedia page, and is an explictly stated reason for inclusion by the wikipedia policy
• Conference call transcripts - 'Microsoft's most recent conference call transcripts' - This page, like the techbookforfree, would be more useful worked into the article, but it should remain on the site until someone has done so, as its hugely relevant to an important event in microsoft's history
• CNN — 'Microsoft CEO before the US Congress (includes audio)' - Again, probably better worked into the article, but should stay for the previously stated reasons.
• Court TV's complete coverage of Microsoft anti-trust case - Same, though also contains copyrighted material, an explicityly stated reason for inclusion as an external link Umopapisdnwi 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, regarding blogs, I would first note the presumption against blogs (although blogs from noted authorities may not bear the full brunt of the stricture, there certainly is nothing to suggest they should be placed onto the normally-to-include list). I don't know these blogs, and I am not going to spend a long time researching them (but then the burden falls on the inclusion, not the deletion, of external links). Four just describe themselves as news, and I see no particular reason why the WikiNews is insufficient. The final one, Microsoft Is Awesome, describes itself as a site "dedicated to the evangilization of Microsoft Products". Even assuming that description to be the case, and assuming the website to come from a meaningful authority, I don't know that it would merit inclusion of what should be a relatively trim list of external links.

Moreover, the Google search for references to the website - links: microsoftisawesome.blogspot.com OR microsoftisawesome.com - turned up only about 224 links. Microsoft.com, for comparison, generated about 28,000,000 references, and scobleizer.com, a Microsoft-related blog, generated about 73,100. Moreover, of those about 224 links, the majority of those that I saw were links created or submitted by the author(s) of Microsoft is Awesome. Accordingly, I don't see any evidence that Microsoft is Awesome is written by "a recognized authority." Moreover, as I believe one of the advocates of the inclusion of the website above is involved with the website despite no disclosure of that fact here (as an author, contributor, and/or promoter), there is a heightened concern that the link is being included (or supported) as an effort at self-promotion. (I could certainly be wrong here, but as I asked previously for some outside verification of the importance of the site and as the contributer and have received basically nothing and since the contributer has not disclosed his/her interest, I am suspicious.) The only justification for inclusion has been the conclusory assertion of relevance, no explanation, no examples, etc.

On blogs, I can SHOW you why wikinews is insufficient. First visit wikinews for microsoft, and then visit any of the blogs listed, we'll take wonova for example. You can see that a lot of microsoft related news is not present in the wikinews page. Until now I had never even heard of wikinews to be honest, and highly doubt its completeness. Wikinews seems to miss out on a LOT of product and software releases that do not make national news headlines, even if they are extremely important. Take MIA's announcement of the release of ATLAS, a HUGE release in the realm of web developement, that was not mentioned in Wikinews. I have looked through each of the links in the blog section, and feel they all contribute relevant knowledge to the article. If you want to make a case against all the blog links, as they are blog or citing excessive advertisement, or another policy stipulation, then I could see where there is room for arguement. Perhaps no blogs have a place on wikipedia. All things considered however, I would rather we leave the information available, until a few more voices chime in for deletion that aren't here to check the microsoft article every day.Umopapisdnwi 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus, and I hope that I have explained myself in sufficient (fulsome) detail to avoid any concerns that I am not being forthcoming, I would suggest trimming the external links down to: 1) the Microsoft homepage, 2) the Rueters overview, and 3) the Yahoo finance page.Cka3n 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To augment what I said before about self-interest: It looks like Mr. Reiser, Umopapisdnwi, and 198.45.18.20 may be either the same person or closely related - [7] (Evan editing Umopapisdnwi's page) and [8] (198.45.18.20 editing Evan's page). As Mr. Reiser is without a doubt affiliated with Microsoft is Awesome, and as Umopapisdnwi is also affiliated with a Microsoft blog (neither meets the criteria for inclusion here), I strongly suspect that these inclusions are either for purposes of pride or purposes of financial self-interest (e.g., generating hits). I will, in light of that most recent discovery of the affiliations of my interlocutors here, enact the changes I proposed shortly, barring any request to the contrary from a neutral advocate.Cka3n 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure. I do read MIA regualarly. I am not however, affiliated with the blog that Mr. Reiser attempted to add to my user page, nor am I associated with Mr. Reiser or his blog. My username though seeminly unique, is a rather common one, as it is a nifty way to spell the word upsidedown, umopapisdn.

Ultimately, I feel we should wait for more input from a few people besides you and I, and that we should ignore Mr.Reiser as he has evident self-interest in the matter.

Umopapisdnwi 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously disputing the association of the "three" of you is not going to get anywhere (especially if you are going to accuse Mr. Reiser of adding a link to a blog you have no association with without talking with you first and without any apparent reason). However, we don't need to resolve that, since we can safely remove his blog both as per Jason C.K. below and as per the criteria I set forth above. Cka3n 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you just trim the current blogs listed. Currently there are 5 blogs listed,

• Relevant and Up to Date KEEP
  • Wonova: Microsoft Related -Last update was 3 Months ago
  • microsoftweblog: Microsoft Related - Last Update 2 weeks ago
  • Microsoft Is Awesome: Microsoft Related - Up to Date
• Irrelevant or Out of Date REMOVE?
  • Microsoft Monitor redirects to a site having nothing to do with Microsoft
  • Arcon5: a tech news site with a Microsoft SubSection - Up to Date

198.45.18.20 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my blog, i'll leave it up to you guysEvanreiser 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, seeking more opinions? I'll throw a few around...not on every issue, but a few. I'll preface with, if any of these were used to help write this article, and aren't already in footnotes, perhaps have a Bibliography section? Standard wiki appendices can include See also, References, Bibliography, and External links. Otherwise, if they have something valuable to say and you don't want to see their reference lost, I'm sure you can easily find a way to use them as a citation for an existing claim in the article. Also, I've seen FA with a lot of links (20-ish). The number of links doesn't bother me as much as the appropriateness of many of these links.

Microsoft — Official website--YES. Obviously so.

Microsoft Update — NO. Let them navigate there from microsoft.com. Wikipedia is not here as a help resource nor a link farm.

Microsoft Security Bulletins — NO. Same reasoning as Update.

Microsoft Worldwide Home — NO. Same reasoning as Update. Gee, why don't we just link to every single sub-page of MS?

Techbooksforfree.com — NO. Same reasoning as Update.

Microsoft Versus — NO. It looks interesting, at least it is analysis, interesting further reading, but putting it here is a little partisan. Why not use the info in the article text & cite it? Or move this link over to the Criticism article, where it would make perfect sense as an external link. Or stick it in the "talk" on the Criticism page for someone to use?

News -- REMOVE ALL. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. The CNN CEO article could be used as a citation somewhere. Stick in on the Criticism "talk" page? The Court TV stuff is VERY interesting, but not sure it's right here. Either use in article & cite, or move to Criticism page or that "talk" page.

Blogs--ABSOLUTELY REMOVE ALL. We are not a news site. And an evangelism link is just as partisan as the MS Versus link.

The Versus and Court TV links are very interesting sources...someone should use them somewhere...just doesn't seem right here.

--Jason C.K. 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jason C.K., since I think that you and I agree (although I was willing to let a couple of links through), I am going to go ahead and implement your suggestions. I am going to move the links that could be used elsewhere (Court TV, Versus) here to the talk page so we don't lose them. Cka3n 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)