JD on EP

Brian Donovan, in a comment at TechCrunch, points to another Wikipedia policy page, which lists two situations:

"... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization...."

I receive money from Adobe, but it's not in my job description to even read Wikipedia... are they thinking of intentional hires-to-edit-wikipedia, or are they banning all employees?

"... you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia..."

Well, anyone editing hopes to see "other benefits", like making Wikipedia a better resource, making humanity's access to info better. Where is the line drawn? cash? called "a business"? How far out does "or other benefits" stretch...?

Comments at Ars Technica are trending towards "no problem, ms didn't do wrong".

Some suggest this type of question is intrinsic to Wikipedia's stated social policies. I still think that some type of "volatility" icon on each page could show readers how frequently a page gets reverted, and the type of heat on the discussion page... green for pages which haven't changed or had mostly additions, yellow when significant deletions have occurred, red when there's a lot of back-and-forth between opposing camps. It would clearly disclose the neutrality level of a page, the degree of consensus a page has (or has not) achieved.

Another thought: If I can't write on Wikipedia about things related to Adobe, does that mean Jimmy Wales cannot write on Wikipedia about things related to Wikipedia? That would seem sort of strange.... [Update: It appears this issue has already come up.... ]

This section of Slashdot is worth reading... it's the source material in this whole debate, where MS staffer Doug Mahugh tells what actually happened, what he actually thinks.

I would think that its like an online encyclopedia...if the topic on Wiki is related to Adobe, then Adobe should be the most credible source of that information.

We can't believe "everything" we read on the internet these days...

However, if the Wiki is about a new technology / standard and/or business process, and I'm a giant monopolistic empire with an insatiable desire to "stop at nothing" to win win win -- I should'nt be allowed to add my "definitions" to the Wiki.

I would think the most credible author in this case would be the unbiased governing body determining the new process/standard/ or whatever.

Microsoft or Adobe for that matter, adding "definitions" to Wiki on topics where it can be perceived as a "Roman Empire Monopolistic Manuever" is not good for the company nor the society affected by the new standards.

In other words, are we as a society, getting smart, fair, and open standards? Will they really benefit everyone way into the future?

OR -- are the standards being twisted to meet the needs of the few "Roman Empires" that want to steer things their way.

Eventually, even McDonalds will be employed by MS.

;)

One perspective to look at it:

If corporate citizens posted information on wiki pedia to add to the human knowledgebase, then surely that is a valid perspective to post? Its of course open to the public then to ensure its close to non-fiction, then fiction obviously.

If Microsoft, Adobe, Apple or whomever were to post soemthing on Wiki that was pretty much a virtual advertisment and had no relevance or was just PR spin, the general public would nail them for it.

I think at times, a lot of the "purisists" out there, do in fact insult the general publics intelligence a little too much.

JD if you went on there sprouting that Apollo for example was the silver bullet that will kill Microsoft Vista, then that would stir an outrage. If you went on there and posted Apollo was the birthchild of xyz, and its intended use was to compete etc etc... Then in reality you're contributing to it.

Paid, non-paid provided the information is correct who cares?

I think it's typical case of scare-mongering.

[jd sez: I agree with you, but it's Jimmy Wales' house, and if I should have taken off my shoes at the door then I'd want to know so.]