I was amazed by the angle taken by this SMH story - “Microsoft tried to doctor wikipedia”. Microsoft percieved inaccuracies and bias (something that goes against wikipedia’s vaulted neutral point of view) in an entry on wikipedia, asked a 3rd party expert to give their input, and offered to pay them for their time. Said expert did not need approval for Microsoft regarding the content, and MS actively encouraged the expert to disclose their involvement. Clearly my moral compas must be totally busted ‘cause I don’t see the issue.
did u see the post by doug mahugh on this
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2007/01/23/interesting-times.aspx