I notice that you don't question the idea that a person who loves this company and its products should be leading the project, as opposed to somebody with a more neutral point of view. I'm not saying that a MS hater should be in charge, but really... "a Microsoft patriot"? Orange Mike | Talk02:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --PresN03:45, 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]
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]
Okay. An interview with a project coordinator: That I understand. But why would anyone interview Codename Lisa? Mustn't one interview TNTdonut instead? Fleet Command (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to WikiProject report