Talk:Criticism of Microsoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Microsoft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep and Move to Criticism of Microsoft. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Peer review Criticism of Microsoft has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A Wikipedian removed Criticism of Microsoft from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 21 October 2006

Contents

[edit] Equality?

We don't have "Common Criticisms of General Motors", "Common Criticisms of Apple" or "Common Criticisms of Thimbles" so why should we have this page? This is a general encyclopaedia, not a technology encyclopaedia.

If you think there is a need feel free to start them.

I agree, someone should at least make an article named "Positive Attributes of Microsoft" or something like that to balance this whole article out. It doesn't take a genius to tell this article is heavily biased against Microsoft. ---AverageAmerican
  • Wikipedia is developing guidelines on criticism. To put the full details of all the major issues covered in this article into the main Microsoft article would make that article too long.
--Jason C.K. 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge microsoft tax into this page

This page is already kind of long but the Microsoft tax thing should be merged here since it itself is a common criticism... maybe in the linux opensource section, etc. --RN 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merged in legal issues from Microsoft Page

In an effort to clean up the main MS page I moved the legal issues here. Its somewhat lengthy though... eventually it would be nice to shorten it a bit and make it a bit more pithy... RN 24 July 2005

[edit] This article is not objective?

This article is clearly biased and quite far from the truth. It is too bad for Wikipedia's credibility.

To participate in discussion over wether this article is biased or not , see the 'Microsoft' article talk page. This article is a child page of the Microsoft article. And it might be useful for you to read Wikipedia's policy on objectivity (aka. Neutral Point of View/NPOV). But if you're still not satisfied as to wether this article is POV or not then by all means you can just mark this article as an NPOV dispute.
But you might just have a point, there may be a systemic bias happening here in that there's more evidence against Microsoft rather than for (or it might be just that I need better lessons on countering systemic bias^_^); it might serve the cause of neutrality to at least try to put in some evidence in support of Microsoft over the allegations in this article. And might it be usefull to add a 'controversial topic' template on this article?. --Lemi4 19:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you believe the article is biased, please point out some specific parts of the article and explain how they're biased, so that we all can work towards making the article more NPOV. (You can't simply declare the article NPOV without explaining which specific parts you feel are biased.) - Brian Kendig 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Look at this sentence, for instace: "Many books (such as "Windows for Dummies") and web sites (such as Annoyances.org) have been created to help users navigate Microsoft products."

There are books and websites regarding pretty much widely used program and operating system - OpenOffice, Linux, Mac OS X, etc etc etc. Does this automatically make them hard to use? I'm not saying they are or that they aren't. Just that because there are books written to help users use the software it does not mean the usability is poor. It is a terrible argument to support that view. Anog 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The velvet sweatshop section is also pretty biased. (living nearby I have my own bias :) Many microsofties work "normal" hours and they would seem to have better compensation and benefits than many other jobs. Additionally they are pretty good about "diversity". A friend of mine worked 60+ hour weeks at $15/hr in IT in the marketing industry and felt he'd lose his job if he didn't put in the extra hours. Microsoft employees certainly have a better "deal" than that. There are horror stories I've heard from some, usually former, employees, but MS has a lot of employees and teams, so you're bound to have some exceptions. I've also heard about comp days (or even weeks) when people work hard and I've never heard of anyone getting scolded by their boss for leaving early to pick up their kid from daycare or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.126.97 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Name change from 'Microsoft controversy'

This doesn't really seem to be about "controversy", per se, but more about common criticisms. Does anyone object to moving this article to Microsoft/Criticism? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:15, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, sounds better to me. Brian Kendig 03:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, subpages are long deprecated. How about something like Criticisms of Microsoft? Bryan 03:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me too, or Common criticisms of Microsoft, whichever sounds better to y'all. Brian Kendig 04:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Foxpro EULA restrictions

See article about Visual FoxPro

[edit] Where is the section on anti-trust? Here is counter paragraph

I removed the following POV rant about anti-trust law being evil from the main Microsoft article (Criticisms section no less), I was planning to move it to this article so it could perhaps add to the anti trust debate, but there doesn't seem to be any anti trust section here??? This paragraph needs a major clean up including POV clean up, see discussion about it on Talk:Microsoft.

There are also critics of the antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, which they believe to be an unjustified assault on a business who held a large market share merely by outcompeting its rivals. It is held by many that the case against Microsoft was the result of collusion between government and Microsoft's competitors in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by thwarting the free market through government coercion. Nobel economist Milton Friedman believes that the antitrust case against Microsoft sets a dangerous precedent that foreshadows increased government regulation of what was formerly an industry that was relatively free of "government intrusion" and that technological progress in the industry will be impeded as a result. Friedman, moreover, says that antitrust laws do more harm than good and should not exist.

zen master T 03:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft is only used here as an example in the permanent vested-interest campaign against antitrust law. As a generalized defense of MS-sized corporations, it's OT in "... criticisms of Microsoft". Antitrust is settled law that most citizens strongly agree with. Never mind that Friedman is a Nobel Prize winner in the economic sub-field of inflation control ("hold M1 constant"), his opposition to antitrust is ultra-conservative. It really makes more sense to move this rant to an antitrust law article, and link it in the main Microsoft article with say, one sentence under "Defenses". Milo 04:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tax shelters, political lobbying

Could someone add information about how Microsoft uses a tax shelter in Nevada that lets it avoid about $300 mil in taxes? Also about how Microsoft lobbies on issues that seem anticompetitve and also controversial social issues? Some people think corporations shouldn't lobby on either of these.

I lean towards including wikilinks to corporate governance on both of those issues, since the core discussion is common to every public company. Should a company lobby solely to promote its financial interests (in which case, "anticompetitive" lobbying is good corporate governance where it protects MSFT's market dominance/revenue/shareholder wealth)? Should a company spend shareholders' money on unrelated social issues (charity giving, non-core lobbying activities)? Feco 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

Spyglass sued for deception and won a $521 million settlement.

This unreferenced statement seems to contradict Spyglass, which mentions an US$8 million settlement, citing: http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/16683/16683.html -- Beland 08:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suits and settlements

"Suits by private companies". Several interesting cases against Microsoft I'd not heard of, in addition to had-heard-of Apple, Stac, and Sun cases. MS has surely engaged in plenty of settlements, so how about renaming the subhead as "Suits and settlements with private companies".

  • Where is a summary of the granddaddy expropriation of CP/M by Microsoft that helped move them into the MS-DOS big time? Even if Digital Research, Inc. only threatened suit before MS paid them off, it is clearly evidence of an early and repeated MS pattern. The Wiki CP/M article does not mention a case.
  • I thought I had heard of the "Netscape Communications Corporation" case, and was expecting to see that once famous case summarized. Maybe I really heard of Netscape's "browser war" complaints during the federal anti-trust trial that eventually forced sale of the original Netscape to AOL. The Wiki Netscape Communications Corporation article does summarize an AOL case against Microsoft, that grew out of the federal case.
  • "WordPerfect" (case during which of several corporate names?) I hadn't heard of it, and there's no summary yet. The Wiki WordPerfect article does not mention a case.

Milo 04:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Security

I have some comments on the 'Security' section. First I'm not sure if this comment "permitted unless forbidden" is NPOV; it seems like one of those glass half-full / glass half-empty things.

Second, in my view the NT-based versions of Windows (NT3.51 and NT4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 2003) have security systems which compare favorably to others. NTFS filesystem permissions with their ACLs consisting of multiple ACEs allow a more granular file/folder permissions set than just about anything else (except Novell). Add to this the easy-to-manage user groups function, and finally the overall security zone of NT4-style and Active Directory domains.

NTFS-style permissions extend to registry entries as well; in linux terms this is as if one could apply specific grant/deny editing permissions to each individual line of a *.conf file - put that in in your security pipe and smoke it! Additionally a subset of NTFS-style permissions can be applied to printers, shares ('exports') and certain system-wide 'user rights'.

Finally, these permissions are applied judiciously during the original install, in a philosophy similar to many *ixes: normal users can use but not delete or change application and OS executables and files.

By now you may be thinking this author is just another MS astroturf specialist, but here's where this well-thought-out security system was basically destroyed by Microsoft: the Windows 2000 installer. Prior to Win2k, Windows NT had a reputation among Windows users as being a real bear to set up and run properly - mainly because it implemented the above described security system. I have no idea how the decision was made or who made it, but during Win2k's install process, one was prompted to create additional users.

With no notice to the person installing the system, these users were given Administrator privileges. This effectively bypasses the entire security design described above.

This was the single worst security mistake MS made in its new family of operating systems, and they have been paying for it ever since. As developers began coding and testing their apps with full admin privs, and thus producing software which had dependencies on Administrator (root) privs, the cycle continued, and produced a 'lock-in' effect of its own. Users, if they bothered to contemplate the situation at all, shied away from demoting their accounts to non-admin levels out of fear that programs would not work properly, or that they would lose various ease-of-use comforts. Without being adversarial I think it's safe to say I have observed this phenomenon in many experienced *nix people who clearly know better. 'Everyone knows' you need Admin privs to properly run Windows, and therefore everyone runs it that way.

Other security mistakes have also been made during the default install process - too many open services mainly - but these are small beer compared to the collosal stupidity of the 'Administrator by default' user creation process during system installation.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The page is named "Criticism of Microsoft", not "Rebuttal of Criticism of Microsoft".


Uh, if you're going to have a Wikipedia entry that is so childish and contentious, you have to at least allow rebuttals to be made on the talk page... In reply to the OP in this section, I think the admin-by-default decision was absoutely necessary to get Windows 2000 installed on personal machines rather than only corporate ones. Frankly, until trojan attacks became so common, people had better computing experiences if they could have full access to their machines rather than having to elevate their privileges to perform some actions.

[edit] add velvet sweatshop

This was in response to a Microsoft peer review. It might need copyediting and a POV check, though. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents on right -- why?

Is there a particular reason why there's a {{TOCright}} tag at the start of the article? If there's no objection, I'll change it to the conventional position. --zenohockey 18:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hiddeness

A section should be added in respects to the hidden aspects of Microsofft Products espesially Windows. When diagnossing a problem it can get quite difficult to figure out what is really goin on because of this. Klingoncowboy4 22:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move back to "Criticism of Microsoft"

The article should be moved back. User:Kilo-Lima's reason for moving it was 'there is more than "one criticism" on this page'. So what? It's still grammatically correct. The AfD closed with a consensus it rename to "criticisms" but if you check the votes, this appears to be a clerical error. Gazpacho 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who expects neutrality in a Criticsm article?

This article is entitled Criticsm of Microsoft. It is for criticsm and controversy about Microsoft. Naturally, it only presents the negative aspects of Microsoft.

Some have asked whether this article should even exist since it is so POV. My opinion is that Microsoft has received so much criticsm and controversy that it would not fit into the Microsoft article. There should be a criticsm of Microsoft article simply to present the facts completely.

Is this article too POV? No, because it is presented in an NPOV and encyclopediac manner (tone), and all the facts are true (OK, since this is a wiki, some might not be). In addition, rebuttals of some criticsms would make the article less POV. For example, "Although Microsoft products are widely believed to lack security, others claim that since Microsoft products are dominant, viruses and spyware programmers naturally target them. However, Microsoft's products' infrastructure has been proven to be less secure than others, and in some fields, while Microsoft does not hold market dominance, their products are still the most targeted."

In addition, various reliable sources cite that Microsoft is involved in shady deals with OEMs to mantain its OS dominance. Is this information included in the article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be NPOV definately - this article just needs massive cleanup. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 09:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue with this article is that it does not include the Microsoft response to the criticisms where such responses exist. Capturing the criticisms is worthwhile, but the article should include more points of view on widely controversial topics such as TCO. I'll see if I can do some research and edits to create a more balanced article. Currently it is too POV. Adding the words "some people say" doesn't automatically make it NPOV. Rnapier 16:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes - this analysis is right on the money. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 07:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCO paragraph removed

I feel bad removing something this large, especially referenced, but:

In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom ordered Microsoft to stop a run of print ads which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003. According to the ASA, the comparison put the Windows servers on Intel Xeon processors which were less expensive and offered better performance than the IBM z900 mainframe on which it put Linux; therefore the comparison included the hardware, and the ASA believed it was misleading to claim that the cost difference involved only the operating systems. [1] [2]

the only purpose of the above seems to be to add weight to the linux argument and besides that doesn't add anything useful to the main purpose of the section, that is comparing the TCO of linux and windows. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with your removal. While perhaps we don't need to go into such length, if Microsoft's advertising on TCO has been found misleading this needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. I agree as currently worded, it doesn't fit in the sectiont hat well but it still needs to be mentioned somewhere. This has nothing to do with Linux or whether or whether not Linux TCO is less then Windows. It has to do with Microsoft advertising regarding TCO that has been found to be misleading. I would suggest something like this which I have re-added.
In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom found print ads run by Microsoft which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003 to be misleading. The comparison included different hardware and therefore the ASA believed the ads were misleading as they suggested the cost difference involved only the operating systems.

A reference would be nice. I suspect a quick check of the ASA website should find one, for someone who has the time (I guess you didn't accidently remove a reference RN?)

Nil Einne 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. References already there in links I believe - so I agree with adding it back. The question is, where should it be added - in advertising, or in the TCO section? Just another star in the night T | @ | C 07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge in studies related to microsoft

The said article consists of basically one or two studies and would definately benifit from being rewritten a bit and put here, I think Just another star in the night T | @ | C 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toward GA

  • Especially recently, shouldn't be used as there is no time in encyclopedia (it might not be recently in 5 years from now)
  • Recently, the European Union found Microsoft guilty, same thing as above
  • This sentence : For example, Windows operating systems released since 1995 hide file extensions by default, which can help malicious programmers trick unwitting e-mail recipients into opening dangerous file attachments which masquerade as harmless files with innocent-looking extensions. sounds POV to me.
  • The company also recently started the "Trustworthy Computing" initiative to help with its fight against security., is a sentence that uses recently which should be changed.
  • Here, This effect has recently been dubbed the "Microsoft monoculture", by analogy to the problems associated with lack of biodiversity in an ecosystem., the ecosystem and biodiversity words cannot apply to computers, better words should be found.
  • Clarification in this paragraph, Some accuse Microsoft's licensing policy of aiding the spread of viruses because the first service pack for Windows XP checked for known pirate keys and refused to patch Windows XP installations which had been pirated. It resulted in a large number of Windows XP systems that were left more vulnerable to exploits. To combat this, Microsoft briefly considered letting Windows XP Service Pack 2 be installable on pirated copies of Windows XP, but later decided against this as it would encourage further piracy., would be helpful.
  • Not enough citations, especially when it says people think that or it is said or criticism comes from or stuff like that.
  • It is well written, an almost NPOV. Lincher 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
GA granted. Lincher 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winmodems and Winprinters

Could we mention Winmodems and Winprinters? Basically these are examples of computer hardware that usually only works on Microsoft Windows. With these devices, it can be very difficult or impossible to obtain the device drivers to make them work in other Operating Systems such as Linux. Although it's more a case of vendor lock-in, I reckon it's worth a mention in this article.

It is a good idea but I'm unsure how/if to add it. For example, that is mostly criticism of the manufacturers that make those devices, not exactly microsoft specifically. Also, as far as I know, there's nothing preventing someone (and indeed someone probably already has) from making a device like that for Linux or another operating system too. If you have an idea of how to add it and make it sound related to microsoft without getting embroiled into unreferenced conspiracy theories then I'd go for that. Perhaps it would be best just to add it to see also? RN 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft didn't create "Winmodems" -- the market did. Microsoft probably doesn't even like them because they add complexity to the driver software and system load where such things used to happily exist on the modem hardware itself. The lock-in to Microsoft is also a decision made by the market, not because of any specific attempt to lock people into Windows. We're talking about cheapskate companies looking to save money by making the hardware less expensive.... who really believes they'd double or triple their development costs by writing software for less common platforms? Warrens 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft actually published papers showing when they were a disadvantage Keep soft modems out of retail. [3]. Removing hardware DSPs was more of an Intel push (first called NSP, eventually MMX) than Microsoft because they wanted to justify more CPU speed. It was a huge controversy pre-MMX (1990-1995). Audio and modems were not standard; the aftermarket was huge. Independent hardware vendors thought Intel was out to kill their business. (As you can imagine, Intel’s zeal caused quite a ruckus in the PC industry, so the company quit its aggressive tactics.) SchmuckyTheCat 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice find! thanks for posting that. Warrens 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux revert

Ug - couldn't fit it all in the summary. Anyway, "Linux" refers to the "operating system" article, so in [4] if the user was to click it they would probably be quite confused. I suppose you could do it with wikilinking to the kernel article instead, but as per the discussion about the Linux and Linux kernel articles people seem to believe that Linux refers to the "operating system" itself (not that it makes a whole lot of sense, but anyway...) RN 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Analysis of Microsoft" to "Criticisim of Microsoft"

Hi all,

This article fails to provide an unbiased and complete analysis of Microsoft and so, with its current content, cannot be a good article under the title "Analysis of Microsoft".

I am therefore going to restore the previous title of this article. If you want to move the article back to the title "Analysis of Microsoft", please first remove the article from the good articles list.

Thanks,

Cedars 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done - thanks for the heads up! RN 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, repeating what I've said at the MS Notice Board: Although I do see the intent of the editor's name change, in that he/she desires a more balanced view of the criticism towards Microsoft,... [this] in my opinion is better served by the inclusion of rebuttals and responses toward said criticisms, both from Microsoft and its supporters. Not by an idiosyncratic name change.
And with that, I'm going back on vacation :) --Lemi4 09:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This move should not have happened, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it was not discussed properly. Secondly, renaming this article has entirely changed it's scope. Therefore, I have moved it back to the way it was. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Yeah, I think one can gather what is really wrong with this article just by looking by at the name - for one; almost all negative criticism, very little of the positive... RN 04:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's because the article was called Criticism of Microsoft not Analysis of Microsoft. You can't change the name, and therefore the scope, of the article, and then complain that it is only critical! I suggest moving it back to it's original name, where it was Good Article and had gone through a Peer Review. Nfitz 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we've been through this a million times. "Criticism of Microsoft" was never supposed all negative; it just sort of ended up that way. Also, that was a peer review I brought and a good article I helped achieve through a great deal of work. Please bring your crusade someplace else Nfitz. RN 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah okay ... it would be easier to figure out what had been going on if you hadn't have changed your user name Just another star in the night T | @ | C to RN. Crusade? I'm not the person going through the entire Wikipedia suddenly trying to remove every negative comment about Microsoft. My entire "Crusade" consisted of adding one redirect that was very similiar to many others; and following through with discussion about this, and the subsequent actions that have come out of it. Nfitz 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All else aside, I'm not sure Analysis of Microsoft is really a great name. What I think of when one says this, is should I buy the stock or sell it ... ie. a financial analysis. Is there another NPOV term that can be used? Critical Analysis of Microsoft? Perhaps something else? Nfitz 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not the person going through the entire Wikipedia suddenly trying to remove every negative comment about Microsoft" - That is of course ridiculous. Please read the talk page archives of these pages and the related afds before making any further accusations; you will find the truth you are seeking there (cliff notes: the criticism part is in part my design).

Anyway, I agree that Analysis isn't the greatest name either and am open to suggestions; but this article is not meant to be a purely anti-microsoft article (indeed that would violate the NPOV policy). Even though criticism technically doesn't imply that; as we've witnessed from the rfds and some other discussion and other articles people associate it with that anyway. RN 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly pushing Critical Analysis of Microsoft, but that should imply more neutrality. Odd that there isn't a Critical analysis page ... perhaps there's another word. Nfitz 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've got a name idea: how about, "Criticism of Microsoft and Responses," or "...Rebuttals"? --Lemi4 09:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism pages are meant to describe criticism of something as a verifiable phenomenon. Arbitrary analysis (or even arbitrary criticism that can't be cited) would be original research. I think we can agree that criticism of Microsoft exists as a phenomenon, and that an article about that phenomenon is not going to be "balanced" in the sense of discussing things outside its scope. Gazpacho 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be ok if we just put in a section about how Bill Gates is not a cannibal to the best of anyones knowledge and has not started any nuclear wars yet. (RalfTheDog 06:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

I still prefer the name this article had at one point in its history: "Common Criticisms of Microsoft". - Brian Kendig 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is terrible

I hope others agree with me, but it just simply is. It lacks sources for about 50% of its claims, it contains NPOV comments (I may spend some time going through and removing them), it contains OR and it should not exist due to the inherent POV nature of the title.

As with the Common Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article, this article should be merged back into the Microsoft article, and the 'criticism' section removed - instead spreading out the information throughout the article. This article is a perfect example of why not to have such a section/sub-page.-Localzuk(talk) 13:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The GA is given back upon not having a reason to delist it and having consensus on relisting. See Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#Criticism of Microsoft. Lincher 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted

I have delisted this article for the following reasons:

  • It is inherently biased due to its name - we should not have articles regarding 'criticism' of anything, instead the criticisms should be weaved throughtout the article and subarticles on the subject (so the information should be put back into Microsoft and then the larger sections split off instead).
  • It contains a significant amount of unsourced comments
  • It contains only a single image for the huge amount of space that it takes up
  • Some of the unsourced claims violate POV policy
  • It is not well written, for example the opening sentence is poorly constructed.

Really, I don't think this article could ever be a good article due to my first point - I will expand on this in more detail if required.-Localzuk(talk) 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree... but for a completely different reason. The Microsoft article is biased towards Microsoft - there's no mention of criticism except for it's own section, so the rest gets off lightly! By splitting the main article and the criticism you can always see what you want to.
I'd be interested in what others have to say - on one hand this may require a merge to (and probably rewrite of) the Microsoft article. On the other hand, we'd need a complete rewrite of this article. It's a lot of work either way. --h2g2bob 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I will just comment on your first point in saying that there is no reason to re-merge this article with its parent Microsoft because this is a notable subject. As for the title, it might not be the best or the most suitable one but make a search for Criticism articles on WP and you will find other which also says that even if biaised, they are accepted in accordance with WP's principles (See Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina for example). Pertaining to the instead the criticisms should be weaved throughtout the article and subarticles on the subject comment you made, well IMO (and I have seen other express it too) dispersing throughout the text the criticism of a the subject of an article dilutes the message and that is why each article has its own seperate Criticism section, if needed so.
BTW, I agree with the delistment though giving a more extensive review would help solve the problem. Lincher 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree on the criticism - wikipedia is not supposed to be used to provide a cut and dry 'pro and anti' set of facts on subjects. Instead we provide a complete, balanced, unbiased summary of each subject. Splitting the article into 2 sections is far too black and white and has a variety of problems:
  • Makes information hard to follow. For example if the article about Microsoft talked about how the company has been praised for its GUI ideas, would it not make sense to also include, in the section about this praise, the criticisms of there GUI ideas too? The current system would mean that a reader would have to read that page, then read this page to see if there were any criticisms of the subject. This is not good writing and should be discouraged.
  • Criticism sections and pages are troll magnets, forever being filled with opinion and biased contributions
  • The use of any title such as 'criticisms' is inherently POV and should be avoided as per our guideline.
  • Seperate articles focused on criticism should always be avoided (per the above guideline and also this guideline.
Also, stating that an article is ok because other articles do the same thing is flawed - as those articles are also wrong.-Localzuk(talk) 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all the comments you made but changing the process like you are convincing me to will not happen on wikipedia. There are enough people on both sides (keeping criticisms sections/articles or removing them) to not attain consensus.
I agree that such a section is pov for the mere presence of the word criticism in its title but to prevent such a presence maybe you should propose some titles. The ones that come to mind are : Views of Microsoft, Reception of Microsoft or Response to Microsoft.
As for this article, what should be added to the article to remove the POV bias. Just stating that and changing the title will already bring this toward NPOV and better the quality and remove the bias. Lincher 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we could use a different title. I am not sure what would be appropriate though.
As I say below, I have not seen any compelling arguments to keep the sections, and yes whilst there are those who simply disagree and don't provide suitable arguments to counter my proposition we are not going to get consensus on this. What is needed is some sort of proper policy on criticism - I may get round to working on such a thing at some point. (I know that Jimbo Wales also supports the idea of interweaving too).
To sort out some of the other POV problems, we need to remove all unreferenced claims - either just delete them or move them here.
We need to also provide as much of a balance as possible, ie. we need to provide counterclaims and responses to all criticisms levied at Microsoft.
To sort out the writing style, we need to go through the article piece by piece and rewrite it to form compelling prose - removing the many grammatical problems that exist.
Finally, we need to provide some more images really, to help make the article look a little more attractive.-Localzuk(talk) 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the reasons given for delisting this article.

Sure, we could merge this article into Microsoft...if you want the Microsoft article to be 133 kB long (89 + 44). Note that in Criticism of Gmail's AFD, I voted to delete the article. However, for some subjects, such as Microsoft and Wikipedia, there is too much verifiable criticism of these topics, and it would not be NPOV to delete "Criticism of..." articles on such controversial subjects (e.g. Criticism of Wikipedia).

Some editors apparently have the fallacious notion that it is impossible for a "Criticism of..." article to cover criticism in a verifiable and NPOV manner. The article title is Criticism of Microsoft, not Reasons why Microsoft sucks. Therefore, it should be possible to present the facts in a neutral tone, while mentioning Microsoft's responses to the criticisms. With 37 (+10) references in the Criticism of Microsoft article, isn't it adequately verifiable?

I agree that the Microsoft article is slightly POV in favour of Microsoft. However, I oppose any proposal to move Criticism of Microsoft to another title. In the past, someone tried moving Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsft. Although the article was moved back within 2 days, the article lost its GA status in the process, due to criticism that the new article name was misleading, inaccurate and itself inherently biased.

If there are any actionable concerns, they should be addressed. If not, I request Criticism of Microsoft's Good Article status be restored.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems you missed the rest of the reasons that I delisted it for. Please re-read them. Also, please read the criteria for a good article. This article fails points 1a, 2a and 2d (in some places), and point 4 (generally via the actual policy and use of criticism as its name) and finally, as an extra which adds in to the reason why I delisted it, point 6.
Now, to the use of 'criticism of' debate. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. Merging back into Microsoft is only stage 1. Stage 2 would be to then spread the criticisms throughout the article and its subpages and finally stage 3 would be to split off any overly large subsections within that article. So, yes, in stages 1 and 2 WP:SIZE (which is a guideline, not a policy like WP:NPOV) would not be followed but this would be fixed by stage 3.
As I said before, stating that 'other articles do the same' is a flawed argument as they themselves are violating our NPOV policies and naming conventions.
As it stands we have 2 articles, one which reads nearly entirely in a 'pro' voice and the other nearly entirely in a 'anti' voice. Both these articles, therefore, are biased and fail to meet policy based on their content - add in the title problem and it makes it even more apparant. The criteria for an article to be NPOV isn't just verifiability, it is also to present an unbiased summary of all sides of a point.
Also, just because the concerns are actionable doesn't mean it should be relisted before they are handled. That is not the point of the Good Article process.
Regarding the mention that there are many users on each side of the debate on whether such sections should exist or not. I have yet to see a single compelling argument to keep such sections.-Localzuk(talk) 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I nearly relisted this article before I realized the real count was four to two instead of three to zero for relisting because I actually checked the talk page, but I don't think a four to two vote is enough for a majority opinion. Anyone else want to comment? I relisted this dispute back up to the top on the Good Article review page. Homestarmy 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it was more like three to two, I might be counting one supporter for GA status twice....Homestarmy 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts that I have on the article.

  • The Lead is very POV and saturated with weasel words. "Quite a few people also accuse...", "what some consider to be unlawful...", etc. In the 3 paragraphs, there could be a {{fact}} for nearly everyline. But instead, I would encourage looking for a really good source that makes specific mention of these criticisms and can verify several lines. There are abundant resources that would qualify under WP:RS that could be used to verify these things.
  • The Lead is meant to be a summary of the whole article which should also include a summarize presentation of Microsoft's response to the Criticism as well.
  • The section Products has similar issues as the lead though to a lesser degree. It does need more in-line cites for verification of some of the claims.
  • Lines like " This problem can be avoided by purchasing a computer without Windows or by buying a white box machine."' in the section Licensing Agreement sound a bit like a "How to Manual" on how to stick it to Microsoft. For one, it interjects the assumption that windows bundling is a problem (at least in the view of the Wikipedia article) and then gives the readers advice on how to get around this "problem". I'm sure that it can be rewritten to be a bit a more neutral.
  • I also see a bit of POV in how Microsoft's response is presented. In the section Market Power', Microsoft's response is prefaced with the line "Microsoft defends its behavior..." as if Microsoft was on the witness stand in the court of Public Opinion or being interrogated by Desi Arnaz "You got some 'splaining to do!". A more neutral preface would be to phrase it as "Microsoft's response" instead of "defense".
  • To further emphasis the need for thorough referencing, a line like this one in the section Government Anti-trust lawsuits looks like clear WP:OR "Some speculate that this was due to the new administration that took place when George W. Bush was elected president." This article definitely needs all these "Some people"'s comment purged from the article.
  • In the section Suits by private companies there should be a link or mention of the actual court case for everyone mentioned.
  • I concur with the tag on the section Censorship in mainland China. I also think there is room for expansion in that section.

As for some of the other comments given for de-listing, I have to disagree with a few such as....

  • "It is inherently biased due to its name - we should not have articles regarding 'criticism' of anything" - I disagree because the concept of "Criticism of Microsoft" is a well developed concept in itself-just like Criticism of Walmart. If criticism is notable and substantial of a subject itself to warrant it's own books, reports, newscast and legal theories then it warrants a Wikipedia entry. While it is difficult to maintain an NPOV tone, it is not impossible. It is a tall task for it to met the GA standard of NPOV, though. Further more, both this article and the main Microsoft article are rather large and to merge the two would create a monster of article. Worse yet, a merging could cause the loss of valid and worthwhile information as editors try to "trim" it down.
  • "It contains only a single image for the huge amount of space that it takes up."' - The absence of images is not a reason to preclude an articles attainment (or retaining) of GA status. This is particularly true if a topic doesn't necessarily need an image for a reader to be able to follow or understand the article. I can't think of any image that would aid the reader in following this article.


All in all, I do not think the article mets the criteria for Good Article consideration and I would support it continued de-listing till the referencing and NPOV concerns have been addressed. I don't really have any pro or anti-Microsoft sentiment. (I have no relatives or friends employed by them. I use MS and non-MS products almost equally). I would be willing to assist the editors of this article with NPOV checks of any rewriting and revision. As I said before, it is possible for a criticism article to be NPOV but it takes a lot of work to not only get it to that point but to maintain it. Agne 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Added some images, though I'm not sure how relavent some are. The problem is that a lot of the ideas discussed in the article are a fairly abstract. Anyway if you don't think some are appropriate or you can think of better pictures, please "embrace, extend and extinguish" any of mine --h2g2bob 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

I noticed this article was up for deletion. Can we identify which users are employees or advocates of Microsoft? No one in their right mind would nominate this article for deletion unles they were; an employee of Microsoft or 3rd party associates or misinformed about the integrity of Microsoft. Advocates of Microsoft take note: there is a life outside of the computer, the mouse and the keyboard, get real and wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.191.237.73 (talk • contribs).

[edit] another multimillion dollar company editing wikipedia

As you all may know, today microsoft was caught paying someone to edit wikipedia.

Can a few editors look over this similar controversy.

This is the first time I have caught a mutlimillion dollar company editing wikipedia:

  1. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed.

Thank you, Travb (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say "caught." Caught with their pants down, maybe. There is nothing inherently wrong with having someone edit what may be factually incorrect or biased. ~ UBeR 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is wrong or right, the question is did the paid editors representing MS interests comply with WP:AUTO and WP:COI? If not then it was/is wrong. And this is being mentioned on every major online news source (CNN, Washington Post, etc) so it seems worthy of mention here. Mr Christopher 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] _Copyright Violation_

The section "Wikipedia manipulation through Microsoft" consists primarily of text copied from the linked article, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICROSOFT_WIKIPEDIA?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT. This section should be rewritten in a manner that does not involve plagiarism.BassoProfundo 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the copyvio material as it is a legal matter and as such shouldn't be left in pending rewrite.-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks—I'll remember that in the future.BassoProfundo 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox

Since this is a critism of Microsoft page, shouldn't there be something regarding the Xbox? Didn't they create it because the pc market was falling while home console market was growing? Of course some reliable sources would be needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.163.227.186 (talk • contribs) 19:36, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

Also they charge for xBox live when PlatStation online is free, and better, ex, PSP can connect to wireless routers and surf the web! RealG187 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press releases

I don't know who Cloud02 is or why he/she is defending my change regarding Microsoft's press release. However, I might as well explain why I think my text is better than what was there before.

  1. According to style guidelines, sources should be summarized rather than quoted at length.
  2. The source's criticism is quite specifically about omission of material information: "missing words that make the press release true"
  3. Units shipped is, as I understand it, the same thing as units sold into retail, but somewhat less stilted.

The source is entitled to his opinion, but I haven't noticed that it's particularly unusual for companies that have to deal with any kind of third-party market channel to quote sales into the channel. Gazpacho 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote in my last edit, and the one prior to it, the one written by Raul654, is poorly written. It lacks coherency since the quote included is unsourced in the wiki-text as it's simply just put there and at last, the source itself is an editorial written by a mac 'enthusiast' see here (Cloud02 12:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] This article consists heavily of Original Research

The introduction, ease of use, stability, various parts of vendor lockin (e.g. "Winmodems and Winprinters have been criticised as a form of vendor lock-in since they only work in Microsoft Windows.[25] Creating device drivers for Winmodems and Winprinters to work on other operating systems is very difficult and requires reverse engineering. [citation needed]"), much of licensing agreements etc is all WP:OR until it gets. Even then, the sourcing only shows that those criticisms exists and are not about the criticism of Microsoft. The sources of prime importance for this article are articles about criticism of microsoft. These criticisms levelled in this article are notable to microsoft and do not make criticism of microsoft notable. This is basically a WP:POVFORK, the kind of fork that is frowned upon by wikipedia policy (WP:POVFORK). This is why I tagged the article original research and why I'm going to revert the revert of my tagging. --TrollHistorian 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Tagging the entire article seems kind of lame. There are plenty of citations. If you think some areas need citations, "fact" tag them. If you think some citations are poor, challenge them on the talk page. "Even then, the sourcing only shows that those criticisms exists and are not about the criticism of Microsoft." I can't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. Typically on wiki any criticism anywhere is of the form "so-and-so says it's bad XYZ does this because..." or "major journalists says it's bad XYZ does this because...". What other kind of source could you possibly give for statements like that other than sources that show that people (or so-and-so) is saying that? "This is basically a WP:POVFORK, the kind of fork that is frowned upon by wikipedia policy (WP:POVFORK)." No, there are so many criticisms that the editors of the Microsoft article [rightly] did not want them all in the main article, so there's a short section there, and it references further details here. If you read the very policy page you are quoting you would know that this is explicitly not a POV fork, it's an article spin-out.
--Jason C.K. 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the other successful Criticism pages on wikipedia like Criticism_of_Islam. They actually include which are not criticism. They are articles about the criticism. This article is basically a list of criticism sprinkled amongst a bunch of original research. The criticism has to be aggregated by a secondary party that is not wikipedia for a class of criticism to be even covered. Someone needs to write about criticism, not just criticize. Do you see? Because this article is not about criticism itself but instead is just a list, an aggregation of the criticism it is basically a POVFORK, it simply of a collection of naysayer links. And thus since it is an aggregation, a list, that's all it can be on Wikipedia unless someone else wrote and aggregated the criticism. They had to synthesize the categories of criticsm, they had to summarize it. Otherwise this is just a POVFORK. As it is at the moment. If you write "Major journalists think this" you need a secondary source to back yourself up, otherwise you're making a judgement call, synthesizing data and creating Original Research. Please review WP:OR and see the line about what is OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". This is exactly what this article does. It is a synthesis of criticisms, rather than a synthesis of second party synthesises. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I understand you better but still disagree. Sure, the Islam article talks about criticism of Islam some (it's history), but it includes plenty of actual criticism of Islam, and responses to it. It's fairly prose-y, but ultimately it's still a "list". Does that entire article, and all it's sections and breakdowns and sub-articles already exist elsewhere in a book? Or is the Islam article a synthesis from multiple sources? Look at Criticism_of_Islam#The_Qur.27an and it's forked article...very list-y. Are all these lists somewhere else already in another source? Maybe tomorrow I'll read the Islam article in more detail, but zipping through it I don't think it's fundamentally different than this article. The criticism is aggregated here under the wiki guideline of "summary style" articles. It is an aggregation of criticisms that others have levelled. THAT is why it's an article. Though there are entire books and websites devoted to criticism of MS, so this kind of summary does already exist out there as an aggregate, "notable" item. It is, in fact, an existing topic out in the world, but that isn't the reason this is an article here and now in wikipedia.
--In any case I completely disagree that to put a list here, that list already has to exist somewhere else all together. By that standard every article in wikipedia is in violation, because they are all aggregations of information that don't already exist elsewhere as an existing aggregation. Articles on products in wikipedia break the products down, have sections (history, hardware, software, market performance, final disposition, etc) that don't exist anywhere because each section has been decided upon and built-up as the editors have seen fit from multiple sources. I see tables in wiki that are sourced from multiple sources. What could be more list-y than a table? Yet that table exists nowhere else. Does that make the table wrong/invalid/anti-wiki? No. EVERY article in wikipedia "synthesizes" it's own breakdown of how to present it's topic, this article is no different. EVERY article in wiki is a synthesis of info from other places. Plenty of articles have criticism sections, or articles. It's quite accepted on wiki that criticism may exist about any item, and can be covered, if phrased appropriately and sourced. Have you read Wikipedia:Criticism?
--"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" EVERY article on wiki is a synthesis of info from other sources. This is as well. As long as the info in the articles are actually from other sources, it is not OR. You have taken that quote out of context. That quote from OR is about edits...things put in articles. It is not a standard for calling into question the existence of the entire article itself. EVERY article would violate OR if they all had to already exist elsewhere as an aggregation. By your interpretation I guess this article shouldn't exist either? Criticism_of_Tony_Blair (and you'll notice that Blair, with it's criticism section and article fork is a featured article) Because it doesn't attribute to a single source that is about Blair and that has exactly the same sections of Spin and alleged dishonesty, Authoritarianism, Relationship with President George W. Bush, Alleged presidentialism, His departure, Criticism by the left. That article is a "synthesis", just like this one. You might as well challenge the existence of every single criticism section and article on all of wikipedia. And that OR quote specifices "without attributing". I agree. Plenty of statements here are already attributed, if you see statements in here that should have attribution, tag them. "Major journalists think this" you need a secondary source to back yourself up Of course. if you see anything like that in here that isn't sourced, "fact" tag it.
--Jason C.K. 07:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:Criticism "However, creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky"." This part of what I'm talking about. This is a POV fork and it lacks sources and references about criticism. You need sources about criticism to allow the stitching together of the synthesis. Criticism sections have their place in their articles where the notability of the article determines if the related criticisms are notable but WP:Criticism seems to cast a negative view on articles like this. Also there are many other criticism articles which suffer much the same problems, for instance the Christianity article fails to cite anything about the criticism. The article is tagged with OR because the entire article article is plagued with OR. --TrollHistorian 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting situation we have here. When facts less than favorable to Microsoft are added to the main article, the objection is raised that the main article is too long and that the material should go into a separate "criticism of Microsoft article." And then the "criticism of Microsoft" article is derided as a POV fork that shouldn't exist. Raymond Arritt 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care what is said about Microsoft or the politics of the Microsoft article as long as it follows policy (WP:NPOV,WP:OR,WP:V,WP:RS). We just need to find secondary sources which aggregate Microsoft criticism, and from those sources you can stitch this article together otherwise this is just a POVFORK and WP:OR.--TrollHistorian 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the insistence on sources that "aggregate" criticisms of Microsoft? No other Wikipedia articles require that their source information be taken from an "aggregated" format, so why hold this article to a unique standard? Raymond Arritt 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually according to WP:OR I'm correct. All these criticisms are primary sources, only some are secondary sources, or aggregations of criticisms. I'm quoting from WP:OR here about what is OR: "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Here's more "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." --TrollHistorian 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to decide if you're still contesting the existence of this entire article on the contention that it's synthesis (like EVERY other aticle, section, list, & table in wiki, including featured articles), or if you're now just contesting the individual claims. As for primary/secondary, nearly every footnote in here is secondary...it's to various journalists, news outlets, news stories, etc. In any case OR has no problem with primary as long as anyone "who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Do you have examples in this article where a primary has been interpreted. Your marking the entire article is still unjustified. If you wish to tag specific statements, that would be appropriate. You seem to be trying extremely hard to take this article down, no one is agreeing with you, and you are completely avoiding lines of argument (you respond to only a fraction of what I ask of you).
--Jason C.K. 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You keep misunderstanding me at every step and then you make claims and accusations about what I'm doing. I'm not out destroy this article (I don't appreciate the accusation). I want it improved, that might include cutting it down to things which has reliable secondary sources. Look you haven't brought up anything worthwhile to respond to, you keep asking for evaluation of concrete examples which are not this article and in many cases suffer the same flaws as this article. Last time I checked Wikipedia preferred the consensus of policy over general directionless consensus. You keep asking me to respond to things which are outside of the scope of this discussion. No I'm not going to (it is very time consuming). The policies set forth are an abstract set of rules, I will argue over those, but if you feel the need to bring in concrete examples of other articles which have similar but different issues altogether I probably will not respond. It is generally irrelevant and feels alot like the pokemon arguments I keep seeing. This is the application of abstract policy to an article, this article, this is not about precedent, or how it was done in the past. Policies change, especially inclusion policies, for instance this article was once considered a quality, featured article and now it has fallen out of favor (see the top of the talk page). Your responses are large and complex and ask too much, very often you ask to expand the scope of what is being argued, which is frankly irrelevant. We're discussing this article here, and this is about as far off the topic as I wish to take it. Concrete examples have their place but they are relatively irrelevant to this policy based discussion. --TrollHistorian 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • De-indenting. "I'm not out destroy this article (I don't appreciate the accusation)." All right then, I apologize for saying that. But you seem to be changing tacks on why you object to the article (it's a synthesis vs. it's not fully sourced), and when I ask for clarifications on your objections, you've been doing a lot of ignoring. The reason I'm asking for some concrete answers is because clearly we are not comprehending one another on a theory level. I thought a few concrete examples might shed some light. Just saying you think the other articles I've mentioned are equally flawed would tell me something. Do you think they're equally flawed? And my simple yes/no questions would not require much from you. Just a yes or a no. Then I'd at least know if you agreed with anything I've said, know your perspective a little better, and know how much we differ on fundamental perspective. If you still don't want to, then don't, but the more points that you choose to not address at all, the more the discussion process stalls. In any case, we can always wait for others to join. I'll probably elevate this in a day or 2 if nobody else does. "Wikipedia preferred the consensus of policy over general directionless consensus." We disagree on how you interpret that policy. No one here has agreed yet with your interpretation, does anyone at OR Talk or Criticism Talk? "This is the application of abstract policy to an article, this article, this is not about precedent, or how it was done in the past. Policies change" All right, well if we can't agree, and no one here is agreeing with you, perhaps soon this has to get elevated so it can get somewhere, have more contributors, etc. Though it seems like this ought to get argued on a policy page, and point to this (or other articles) as an example. This is huge clutter for this Talk page. And I still think if many FA share this structure, that says something about current wiki consensus. Maybe you can change that tide though. "Your responses are large and complex" Only 1 was notably longer than other posts on this topic. Bring up a complicated issue, you get a complicated answer. Especially when initially I couldn't even understand your issue.
--Jason C.K. 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On the subject of "appearing like you're just trying to take the article down", when you write that the article is ALL primary-sourced, and imply that it's mis-using them, and I reply saying it seems mostly secondary-sourced and can you point to any mis-used primary source...when you ignore that, that does start making it look to me like you're just throwing-up anything you can say even if it's something you can't defend. The more you ignore, the more the discussion stalls, and the more it looks to me like you're not discusssing in good faith.
--Jason C.K. 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow another bad faith accusation, I see where this is going. Criticism of microsoft based on primary sources is considered a secondary source with respect to the topic of Microsoft. Criticism of Microsoft is a primary source with respect to the topic of Criticism of Microsoft. Analysis of the Criticism of Microsoft is a secondary source. Wikipedia, a tertiary source, relies on secondary sources. --TrollHistorian 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, so bad faith isn't the right term here, but you haven't been looking entirely to me like someone who's listening to others and responding, which rather grinds any discussion to a halt. I have been attempting to understand you, and indeed am about the only person even joining you in the discussion, but your ignoring counter-points isn't really helping. That pattern doesn't give me the impression of someone who fully supports a give-and-take discussion. So no, that's not bad faith, but I don't think it's fair or productive discussion practice. "Criticism of microsoft based on primary sources...." Ok, I think I get your point. But OR doesn't say you can't use primary sources, as long as anyone "who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." And I think virtually none of the citations here are primary sources. One common type of citation here is Mr. Famous-Tech-Analyst plays with Windows, notes a behavior, then writes up his analysis of that behavior ("I think this behavior of Windows is good/bad because..."). From my perspective, citing Mr. Analyst is citing a secondary source according to wiki definition. You disagree? Another common type of citation here is Mr. Famous-Industry-Analyst observes behavior by Microsoft, then writes up his analysis of that behavior ("MS has done XYZ, I think that's good/bad because..."). Another secondary source, no? In any case, I again say, find some spots in here where a primary source is being interpreted by the wiki writer. Tagging the entire article is like taking a shotgun approach and saying most references are a mis-interpreted primary source. From what I've looked at so far, there are hardly any primary sources in here, and if you're going to tag the entire article you're going to have to show that there are many primary sources, and that most have been mis-interpreted.
--Jason C.K. 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying that this article has some secondary sources. I'm not denying that primary sources are not sources and are not permitted by OR. We're dealing with 2 contexts here, we're dealing with the context of Microsoft (where mostly everything you are claiming is a secondary source is in fact a secondary source) and we're dealing with the context of Criticism of Microsoft where every criticism is essentially an instance of criticism and not ABOUT criticism (note if the criticism aggregates other criticisms it can be a secondary source). Thus criticism of microsoft with respect to this current article is still a primary source. "MS has done XYZ, I think that's good/bad because..." is criticism of microsoft, thus a primary source to this article. "Various authors [1,2,3] have criticized MS for doing XYZ, I agree/disagree" would be a secondary source. The article deserves the OR tag because it isn't just a few lines, it is basically the whole article. I already spotted a bunch of OR, I mentioned them and then panned down to find more and more. Basically this article needs to be burnt down and rebuilt. Each subset of criticism is bound to have a secondary summarizing source which can stick it together. Once you find 2 or more reliable secondary sources the article can exist on its own due to the notability of MS Criticism. --TrollHistorian 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


The "Original research" template seems wrong. It's asking for references yet there are plenty of them. 80.233.255.7 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope you're attacking every single article and section on wiki, because this is no different than the rest of them. EVERY article and section on wiki is a synthesis. Are you going to every article on wiki and tagging them OR because none of them source to a single, aggregate source? I guess I'll elevate this to a dispute soon if you can't get over this point or more people don't join in. As for this article existing at all, apparently current wiki guidelines say anything can be spun-out, except criticism (though all guidelines are up for debate, and criticism guideline is explicitly still not a policy yet). Though there is no forking of views. The main article includes criticism, and a link to this page. Perhaps you need to go the Microsoft talk page, the Islam talk page, the Tony Blair talk page, the George Bush talk page, etc, etc, and let them all know that even though they're summary style, they cannot have separate criticism articles, and all articles on wiki need to be sourced to a SINGLE, aggregate source. "it lacks sources and references about criticism." It does not!!! What do you call 80 footnotes?!? If you find some claims that lack sources, tag them. "You need sources about criticism to allow the stitching together of the synthesis." Absolutely not. EVERY article on wiki is a synthesis. "We just need to find secondary sources which aggregate Microsoft criticism" They exist, if I recall correctly some of them are even in footnotes already, but since EVERY article & section on wiki is a synthesis, we do not need to look any further for what you believe we need. It is unneeded, but already present in the footnotes.
--Jason C.K. 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you understand that there is a difference between criticism and a synthesis about criticism? That criticsm can be different from articles or sources about criticism? There is a difference and you're not seeing it yet. --TrollHistorian 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please review Meta-discussion and Meta as they relate heavily to discussion here and what the topic of this article and what are the important sources for this article. --TrollHistorian 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the distinction you're referring to. You're either going to have to explain it better, or wait until someone else agrees with you and explains it another way. "Please review Meta" I'm familiar with the concept but I don't think it's relevant in the way that you seem to think it is. And what about answering my questions? Forget vague theory & principle, can you point how this article is different from Criticism_of_Tony_Blair? You do realize that Microsoft, with its attendant criticism section and forked criticism article, is a featured article? Apparently wiki consensus is not against this common arrangement. How about some simple yes/no's so I understand where you're coming from...do you dispute that EVERY article on wiki is a synthesis? Do you dispute that EVERY criticism section, and EVERY criticism article is a synthesis (or if not EVERY, nearly all of them)? Do you think the Blair, Islam, and Bush criticism articles should go away?
--Jason C.K. 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you claim "Many journalists dislike X" and you provide to links to these many journalists, you are synthesizing. If you instead link to some reliable analysis that author Z else has made where they aggregate those links and come to the conclusion "Many journalists dislike X", then you can in the article say "Many journalists dislike X [citation of author Z's synthesis]". You can also cite all those seperate criticisms as well but until you have a reliable secondary source which has done the analysis for you, it will be Original Research. Also just because something exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean it is correct, right, or an appropriate interpretation of policy. An article which summarizes and aggregates of criticisms of microsoft is what is needed here, and I suspect it is already referenced in the article. It is just that the vast majority of claims and aggregations here do not rely on reliable secondary source analysis. Most of the references are instances of criticism, and not analysis of criticism. --TrollHistorian 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • De-indenting my response. An excellent, clear explanation of your point. But I disagree. What's more, if you apply your reasoning to the rest of wiki, every article, section, list, and table is OR. Perhaps your arguments are better aired on the OR Talk page. And if something is a FA, that seems to pretty well show it is in line with wiki consensus & policy. Also, if you're going to keep ignoring my simple questions, I'm going to rapidly lose interest in attempting to debate with you. At this point I'm not sure there's any further point until more weigh-in, or I elevate this to a dispute (soon).
--Jason C.K. 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question & and Suggestion

Its 11:30 where I am, so please bear my question:

Why is there no mention of the little differences between the operating systems? I saw a little mention aobut them.

I mean, I've used Windows 95, 98, M.E and Xp and I have not seen any real differences. I've used the Mac OX 9 and the Mac OS X and I've seen differences (just comparing to show I'm cluess of the diffences of Windows OSs). Can some please tell me the diffences? I think it should be mentioned a little further. "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Covered in the main Microsoft article. Raymond Arritt 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added many [citation needed] tags because the article is seriously lacking sources

I added many [citation needed] tags because the article is seriously lacking sources. I got about 1/2 way through and just gave up. The article is a mess. Even worse all these claims are made about what critics think. You can't make those claims without having a reliable secondary source which aggregated the criticism and analyzed the criticism. --TrollHistorian 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep - I've tried to clean it up several times before - each time barely meeting GA guidelines but it hasn't held up with time I guess. (Keep in mind that at the time people took offense to the idea that you needed sources for those things which they deemed "common knowledge" - luckily it seems to have gotten better on that)RN 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I commend you for your effort, hopefully some of these tags will remind future editors to provide evidence to support their edits. --TrollHistorian 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why 2 Tags?

There are two tags because, IMHO, the primary sources issues has not been covered and is a real issue for this article. It relates to WP:OR but there are seperate OR problems such as unreferenced claims. Both tags deal with different issues and similar issues. Resolving one, does not necessarily resolve the other. (2 tags in question and OR and Primary Sources) --TrollHistorian 04:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was a little suspicious, because multi-tagging often is a maneuver simply to discredit an article or its general topic. But I can see that there's a distinction between the tags as used here. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acquisition section

Is this criticism? The sentence that makes this a criticism isn't cited. Acquisitions and mergers are par for the course for US corporations. It's possible to turn this acquisition section into a criticism, real criticism, not anti-MS fanboy blog stuff; but not the way it is written now. It'd be better to scratch it and let someone make an entirely new attempt.

Secondly, the McNealy quote is bothersome. Who cares what he says? And his wisecrack is instantly rebutted by the existence of Microsoft Research - the biggest funded corporate idea factory since the legendary times of Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. SchmuckyTheCat 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh my god

what a company. if a normal business was doing this they would be done. microsoft just throw the bill after customers of OEM-windows. it should be translated to more languages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.91.94 (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECriticism_of_Microsoft_a1f1.html"