The informational integrity of Wikipedia has long been debated throughout the ranks of academia, business communities, and the like. While some cynicism can be lent to the validity of the online reference guide’s volume of information, today’s blogosphere explosion may represent a bit of an overreaction.
Or, to put it a little more bluntly, people are going out of their mind for no good reason over this whole Microsoft/Wikipedia thing.
By the tone of all the articles I’ve read on the subject today, you would think that this whole thing is a conspiracy of epic proportions designed to brainwash citizens the world over with pro-Microsoft propaganda. The sensationalism throughout the headlines and articles on this non-event is bordering on ridiculous, even from the most liberal of journalistic standards.
So, instead of offering up some hatemongering post designed to inspire fear and paranoia, I will present the facts of the matter, if nothing else for the sake of objectivity.
Rick Jelliffe is the author in question whose services were requisitioned for the Wikipedia entry. Here are some his own comments concerning the communication between himself and a representative (unnamed in his blog entry, very classy) from Microsoft:
So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML. I am hardly the poster boy of Microsoft partisanship! Apparently they are frustrated at the amount of spin from some ODF stakeholders on Wikipedia and blogs.
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. If anyone sees any examples of incorrect statements on Wikipedia or other similar forums in the next few weeks, please let me know: whether anti-OOXML or anti-ODF. In fact, I already had added some material to Wikipedia several months ago, so it is not something new, so I’ll spend a couple of days mythbusting and adding more information.
After reading Mr. Jelliffe’s blog, the whole thing seems like a non-issue to me. Based on his commentary here, along with years of industry recognition for not kissing the ground that Microsoft walks on, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that his impartiality and expertise on the subject at hand made him an excellent choice for this particular endeavor.
Oh, but the blogosphere just couldn’t let it go. What’s the fun in that? I mean, this whole “citizen journalism” concept is about stirring up controversy and inventing corruption where none seemingly exists, right?
So, the tirade began with much fanfare open criticism. The discussion became so widespread, that the hereto-unmentioned Microsoft representative felt it necessary to step forward and try to shed some light on the situation.
Here are Doug Mahugh’s comments in a Slashdot forum post:
I understand and accept that longwinded discussions of lies and their theoretical ramifications is a fascinating hobby for some, but since it’s 100% my own personal actions that you’re talking about, I just want to be very clear: the premise of this thread is a lie.
Wikipedia’s definition of “Microsoft (sic) Office Open XML” is not fact-based, and I think it would be a good thing if there were more participation by persons like Rick who are knowledgeable and interested in the actual facts of file formats, and less participation (or at least less influence) by those with specific agendas based on specific corporate interests.
Again, the whole arrangement seems perfectly legitimate with well-meaning intentions by Mr. Mahugh.
These posts are not classified information. Everyone who has written about this story in the last 24-48 hours has either directly read or had a link to this information, but has conveniently chosen to either ignore the facts or embellish them in order to create a juicier headline.
Unfortunately, Microsoft was pretty much in a no-win situation with this Wikipedia entry to begin with. By trying to outsource a neutral third party to correct the information, sensationalist writers automatically make snap analyses and throw around words like “conspiracy” and “corruption” like they are cheap candy.
And if the company decided to edit the entry themselves? Of course, the very same writers would cry foul again, claiming that the information was biased and couldn’t be verified as credible.
Mostly, this whole thing just stinks.
Perhaps we, as journalists, should be willing to admit that sometimes there is no story behind the story.
Maybe we could even concede that sometimes things are what they seem.
But then again, maybe I’m aiming just a little too high.
Add to 
Joe is a staff writer for Murdok. Visit Murdok for the latest ebusiness news.
