In my view, Microsoft doesn't yet "get" social networking...
Category Microsoft
First we had the attempt to influence bloggers to write nice things about Microsoft Vista by handing out fully loaded Acer laptops (that just *happened* to be preloaded with Vista). The latest faux pas is the revelation that they are paying people to "correct" Wikipedia entries about Open Document Format (ODF) and Microsoft Office OpenXML (OOXML). Both of these actions, but especially the second one, shows a complete and total disregard for the ethics of this new environment.
Manipulating public opinion is a constant in life. That's why we have advertising. But when you start paying money to influence mechanisms that purport to be "neutral" or informational, then you've crossed a line that people won't soon forgive or forget. Yes, it's always up to the reader to be on guard for bias, but they shouldn't have to do that when they go to a reference site.
I suppose you could say that this payoff is no different than having someone whose employment at Microsoft involves monitoring web sites such as Wikipedia for supposed "inaccuracies". But at least there, the interests are out in the open and can be factored in by those who control the reference site. The attempt to buy sources with no connection to Microsoft is what makes this different and wrong.
But hey... I guess when you've got all that cashflow from the Office and Windows monopoly flowing in, you've got to put it to use somewhere, right? Xbox and Zunes will only suck cash and create losses for so long... :)
First we had the attempt to influence bloggers to write nice things about Microsoft Vista by handing out fully loaded Acer laptops (that just *happened* to be preloaded with Vista). The latest faux pas is the revelation that they are paying people to "correct" Wikipedia entries about Open Document Format (ODF) and Microsoft Office OpenXML (OOXML). Both of these actions, but especially the second one, shows a complete and total disregard for the ethics of this new environment.
Manipulating public opinion is a constant in life. That's why we have advertising. But when you start paying money to influence mechanisms that purport to be "neutral" or informational, then you've crossed a line that people won't soon forgive or forget. Yes, it's always up to the reader to be on guard for bias, but they shouldn't have to do that when they go to a reference site.
I suppose you could say that this payoff is no different than having someone whose employment at Microsoft involves monitoring web sites such as Wikipedia for supposed "inaccuracies". But at least there, the interests are out in the open and can be factored in by those who control the reference site. The attempt to buy sources with no connection to Microsoft is what makes this different and wrong.
But hey... I guess when you've got all that cashflow from the Office and Windows monopoly flowing in, you've got to put it to use somewhere, right? Xbox and Zunes will only suck cash and create losses for so long... :)
| Permalink |
