Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-24/WikiProject report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


WikiProject report

Microsoft does the Signpost

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Rcsprinter123

So, WikiProject Microsoft covers a major company in the technology world, but did that old trick of becoming nearly inactive and then springing back to life. Project coordinator STJMLCC is keen to promote their newfound activity and attract some new members, so we had the pleasure of interviewing him and a fellow WikiProject Microsoft participant, Codename Lisa, to see what they've been up to.

I understand that WikiProject Microsoft was recently revived and brought back from semi-inactivity. What effect has this had on Microsoft articles, collaboration, and your own editing so far?

  • STJMLCC: I have always edited Microsoft articles for the better and am a true to the bone "Microsoft patriot". I believe that our project's revival has brought attention to the believed to be perfect, which they are not, Microsoft articles. Any and all articles can be improved.
  • Codename Lisa: I believe it is too early to ask this question. Organizing a WikiProject takes times. So, it is not unexpected that your answer is "None so far". My greatest concerns, however, is the answer may remain the same even when sufficient amount of time passes.
Xbox One, a Microsoft product

What motivated you to join WikiProject Microsoft?

  • STJMLCC: My love and passion for Microsoft and its products.
  • Codename Lisa: I was invited directly. jcc invited me. He said I was arguably one of the most active contributors at the time. In a way, when a Wikipedian contributes a lot to a field, WikiProject membership becomes semi-compulsory. Now, I feel it is extremely important to say that love of Microsoft (or lack of it) were not my motives. I am often accused of being a Microsoft fan in spite of my username being Codename Lisa! (Sadly, the opposite of the accusation would have been wrong too!) Wikipedia work is so serious that fanaticism, in its face, even fails to make its way into the limits of the irrelevant and remains within the boundaries of the unworthy of even instinctive attention.
Bing, another Microsoft venture

The project has 13 pieces of featured material and 16 good articles. Have you contributed to any of these articles? Are you currently working on bringing an article up to FA or GA status?

  • STJMLCC: I have contributed to certain articles. And I am working on the collaboration articles that are posted.
  • Codename Lisa: Shortly after signing up to Wikipedia, I undertook the task of promoting Microsoft Security Essentials article to FA status. I succeeded on my second try, although it is unfair that I take all the credit. I had the utmost pleasure of working with Dennis Brown, Malleus Fatuorum, Nikkimaria and Thumperward on the project. Later, Jasper Deng and I collaborated on Windows Server 2012 article to bring it to GA status. The core of my career in 2012 and 2013 was Windows 8 article and several pages (articles, AfD, PUF) directly related to it. Of course, an area well outside the WikiProject that nevertheless directly influences it, is MOS:COMPUTING. It is the brain-child of FleetCommand which started as an essay and eventually became an official guideline. I believe credit is due here.
Excel, a spreadsheet program from Microsoft Office

Which aspects of Microsoft are not covered by your scope? Do you look after the articles on, say, Excel or Windows Mobile?

  • STJMLCC: All aspects of Microsoft are covered by our scope but not always directly. For instance our subdivisions are Wikiproject Microsoft Windows and .net, these serve more specific purposes.
  • Codename Lisa: I am a little in doubt as to what is the meaning of "you" here. If "you" refers to WikiProject Microsoft, I must say the honest answer would be "barely the computing aspects" and surely nothing beyond that.

Does the project collaborate with any other projects, be they child, parent or unrelated?

  • STJMLCC: Yes, we work with WikiProject Computing and our child projects such as WikiProject Microsoft Windows and .Net.
  • Codename Lisa: The honest answer would be "No". The extent of my knowledge, the amount of collaboration have so far been zero. Individual members certainly do collaborate when they have cross-project membership but that's the extent of it. No collaboration that can be attributed to the whole of the project has ever happened. At least, not to my knowledge.
Windows Phone, now a popular smartphone OS

The front page of the WikiProject lists only 15 Wikipedians as currently active members. Do you think you would benefit from having more participation, and how?

  • STJMLCC: Oh yes! I have been working to get more users. I have been coordinator a short time and I have been working diligently to get the project better known.
  • Codename Lisa: I'd say the project would benefit more from an experienced leader and coordinator, preferably an experienced administrator. When that happens, yes, the more the members, the merrier.

Anything else you'd like to add?

  • STJMLCC: A special thank you to the editor[s] from the Signpost and the loyal WikiProject Microsoft users who make this possible!
  • Codename Lisa: I really like to know whether there are any Microsoft employees active in Wikipedia who both contribute and collaborate recurrently. But what I'd like to say is: I am afraid I don't think there are.
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • That's a fair point, but also keep in mind that there are many people who edit Wikipedia concerning subjects about which they are passionate, such as politics, religion, scientific theories, or sports. There becomes a problem when advocacy for a cause (paid or unpaid) is so intense that it outweighs someone's ability to edit content in a way that is neutral with regards to the interests of the subject. It seems that many, if not most, people adhere to NPOV standards. There do seem to be an important minority who do not, and those people sometimes find themselves involved in edit wars, sockpuppet investigations, ANI threads, and/or Arbcom cases. --Pine✉ 03:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as people write neutrally, I don't see the problem with someone "leading" a project who is a fan of the subject. I'd rather expect it, actually- any and all "WikiProject [Company]" projects are populated entirely by fans of the company or its works. Why would you be a big part of a project, much less lead it, if you didn't care about the subject matter? WP:WikiProject Square Enix, for example, has 38 featured articles/lists, but I doubt it has ever had a member who wouldn't describe themselves as a fan- it hasn't stopped them from writing articles that others agree are good, and I think the same goes for the Microsoft project. --PresN 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to ban people who are enthusiastic about a topic from contributing to articles on the subject, we'd be in big trouble! Remember that interests only becomes a conflicts of interest when they conflict with the goals of being a good Wikipedian (e.g., by causing editors to do things like systematically remove criticism, write with a non-neutral tone, show an inability to interpret or apply policy evenly and fairly). Although, as I'm sure you know, this can be a hard balance to strike, I think it's clear we have much more to lose by discouraging everybody interested in a topic from even trying than me might possibly gain! —mako๛ 04:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any COI talk is ridiculous. Nobody here is editing topics they don't care about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Microsoft's case, though, there is a notable example. Years ago (2008, IIRC), MS hired someone to improve one article about a specific Microsoft technology which resulted in accusations of trying to exert inappropriate influence on Wikipedia content. (I wonder if anyone else remembers the incident.) Even though I'm not a fan of Microsoft, I thought at the time it was an overreaction to a good-faith effort to improve one article. -- llywrch (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should shows us a diff of changes so that we can better decide. My experience with a user claiming to be a Microsoft employee (I never know the truth of it) was in Xbox Music, where Mwendlinger made Revision #584210006. Apart from the catastrophic results observable in the preview, the images were uploaded to Commons. Later, this person sent me a note and said "I'm a UX designer working on Xbox Music at Microsoft". I offered to help him (even sent him an email) and even asked an admin and an Oversigher to standby to help. He never showed up. Microsoft will never get special dispensations from me. I never had a pleasant experience with a Microsoft employee. The company is certainly a software giant but definitely not a friendly giant. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, the person hired -- who was a contractor, not a Microsoft employee -- never made one edit to the article in question. The whole controversy was that Microsoft hired someone to edit Wikipedia. (And if anyone thinks half of the outrage was not due to the fact the corporation paying for the edit was Microsoft, they are seriously misinformed.) My point was that MS did try, again in good faith, to pay to improve Wikipedia content. Unfortunately, anyone making positive changes to MS-related content on Wikipedia will be suspected of receiving benefits -- to put it mildly -- for doing so. It's what it is. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manners. It is a very important thing that Microsoft and its contractors miss. (I know it, because it was the source of my misery in Wikipedia too.) Microsoft must understand that 99% of people of the world don't exactly love it to death. So, if a Microsoft contractor or employee is to work on Wikipedia, he or she must (1) take care to be polite, concise, fair and neutral (2) judiciously adhere to WP:V and (3) not reveal his or her connection until he or she has established a reputation that far outweighs his reputation as being a Microsoft gun-for-hire. If asked, he must be able to respond: "Maybe I am, maybe not, but my contribution has both sources and due weight, and that's what matters". And if I might add, please do not assume that Microsoft may be acting in good faith. The geometry of Microsoft's world is different. Fleet Command (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person didn't even edit and managed to attract heat? My dear Llywrch, I see editors here who try, try, try until the most unfair people in the world hell-bent on tormenting them, shame-facedly give their vote of confidence... and these gnomes don't receive any money in return. Yet, a hired person did not even try to edit? (FYI, when Microsoft hires, it pays excellent money.) I am afraid I cannot even pretend to feel sorry for this person. I expect such person to withstand Malleus Fatuorum's scrutiny and keep smiling to prove worthy representing the Behemoth of Mount Rainier. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-24/WikiProject_report&oldid=1193873939"