Wikipedia talk:Microsoft notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you Ta bu shi da yu for setting this up. I hope to contribute and if you'd like my help on anything specific, just ask. SchmuckyTheCat 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool! My first poster :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OSS FUD

The Wikipedia largely represents the opinion of liberal, OSS (open source software) advocates. The nature of an 'open' encyclopedia attracts this crowd. Most of them appear to have a hard-wired hang-up with Microsoft (and corporations in general) and would like to believe that MS's alleged unfair business practise is the reason that OSS hasn't really taken off on the consumer desktop. Such OSS advocates use conspiracy theory and annecdote in an attempt to demonstrate a malign motivation behind each of Microsoft's technical / business decisions. The Internet Explorer article was a prime example of OSS FUD against Microsoft's products, although luckily most of the vitriol has been separated into a separate article (Criticisms of Internet Explorer). The anti-MS brigade got busy:

• waxing lyrical about a handful of rendering bugs
• exaggerating the significance of a US-CERT "recommendation against using IE" (this boiled down to the suggestion of using an alternative browser as one of seven possible solutions to an out-of-date vulnerability report, written last year by Art Manion)
• using POV quotes from "security experts" who make money out of exposing MS vulnerabilities (eg Mark Maifrett, who was criticised for mass-publicising the details of a vulnerability, leading to the creation of the Code Red worm - Maifrett was simultaneously selling software to prevent against such attacks) [1]
• taking every opportunity to criticise the browser's support for the latest CSS/XHTML standards
• devoting a lengthy portion of the article to "Removing Internet Explorer," with many presumptious comments suggesting reasons why users would want to do this. This is despite the fact that removing IE disables Windows Update, leaving the PC open to new security vulnerabilities
• focussing on the anti-trust case against MS (and less so on the fact that it was dismissed due to the judge's well-known anti-MS bias)
• assuming that MS's implementation of ECMAScript was an example of 'Embrace, Extend and Extinguish' (a popular Microsoft conspiracy theory)
• advertising the OSS browser Firefox as an alternative to Internet Explorer in the context of every criticism

I'm not suggesting for a moment that IE6 is perfect. However, it is simply wrong for a Wikipedia article to become a feeding frenzy for advocates of the competition. --Beachy 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat what Ta bu shi da yu has already mentioned. Be constructive. Again, it is not a discussion page for Internet Explorer. So it is better to avoid focusing on a single MS product and discuss the general direction that we should follow. --minghong 18:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Err where did Ta bu mention about the connection between Wikipedia and OSS? Or specific instances of anti-MS POV? Stop pretending to be an overseer of the forum, Minghong. Haven't you got some Firefox Spreading to busy yourself with? --Beachy 21:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While Beachy's note is a little inflammatory, he does have a point. Many articles here have been subject to unacceptable anti-MS POV. Look at what happened in Trusted computing a while back. Several users repeatedly inserted text stating that Microsoft's TC initiative was surely an attempt to lock out competing operating systems and spy on users. Unfortunately, some editors who normally adhere to the NPOV policy can't help taking jabs at Microsoft. They're an easy target around these parts. I hope this project can centralize efforts to present Microsoft in a neutral light. Maybe this conversation should go on the talk page, though. Rhobite 18:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)