EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.05.08

Microsoft Agents from Waggener Edstrom Airbrush Wikipedia, Glorify Paymaster

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, Windows at 9:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Face of rage

Microsoft does not need to edit Wikipedia. It only needs to hire people and agencies to do this. And that’s just what it does. As proof, we have already mentioned Rick Jelliffe on numerous occasions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

Earlier today day we wrote about Waggener Edstrom. We probably ought to have properly highlighted the group’s ugly track record with Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], which includes Microsoft’s very infamous diversion and interference with Wikipedia. Here is a bunch of examples from usgw1.wagged.com, with edits like this of the article on “MSN Search”. Edits from usgw2.wagged.com include “Windows Genuine Advantage”. Notice the edits, particularly in the former example, which add a promotional slant to Microsoft-related articles. This comes from Waggener Edstrom’s offices (no need to proxify).

“…Microsoft not only manipulates the press but also rewrites history, literally, in editable sites like Wikipedia.”So, next time someone points out Microsoft’s revisionism [1, 2, 3] and requests more proof, it should be trivial to show how Microsoft not only manipulates the press but also rewrites history, literally, in editable sites like Wikipedia. Just watch how articles about Microsoft executives changed over the years, turning then from villains to heros.

Since we recently mentioned Waggener Edstrom and their laptop bribes, worth mentioning is also the following older article that we never referenced before:

Mercury News writer accuses Microsoft of Bribery

On the latest episode of “Dean and Nooch”, San Jose Mercury News writer Dean Takahashi had some choice news regarding a $800 swag bag he received, calling the swag bag a “bribe” and saying he’ll send it back in it’s entirety.

Bad people rarely change their bad behaviour (just watch today’s news about OJ Simpson). It is naive to expect otherwise.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

20 Comments

  1. G. Michaels said,

    December 6, 2008 at 1:47 am

    Gravatar

    I’m sorry Roy. I’m rather confused.

    with edits like this

    What’s wrong about that edit? I don’t see anything particularly ominous there. And in any case, that was from 2005… the article looks nothing like that anymore, not to mention that at that point it had a highly POV “Criticism” section, which is hardly strange for Microsoft articles on WP anyway. What exactly do you find problematic with the edit?

    include “Windows Genuine Advantage”. Notice the edits, particularly in the former example, which add a promotional slant to Microsoft-related articles.

    OK, this gets even weirder. Two whole 1-paragraph revisions that added this:


    [[August 9]], 2005, [[Microsoft]] gave up on the WGA program. Due to the various hacks and underlying problems within the WGA program, Microsoft sent the developers back to the drawing board..

    The second edit is actually a restore of that paragraph that was deleted. Can you tell your readers what’s so ominous about that?

    And do you have anything more recent than 2005? Surely there’s more than this to your conspiracy theory?

    it should be trivial to show how Microsoft not only manipulates the press but also rewrites history, literally, in editable sites like Wikipedia.

    No, I’m afraid that’s quite not the case. Not when you’re relying on things like these to make your point. Do you by any chance think people who read your blog are mentally disabled or something? That they won’t notice the gaping holes in your arguments?

    And I’m pretty sure you linked to the whole OOXML edit “fiasco”, which was done the way it was done *precisely* so people like you wouldn’t be able to point to it and say the things you’re saying here.

    For someone who thinks Microsoft is so devious and evil, you sure have a way to present your allegations of wrongdoing with the flimsiest of evidence. Do you not lie there at night (if you do sleep sometimes) and tell yourself “wow, if I were Microsoft I’d do X and Y” and wonder why it is that they don’t do that?

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  2. mike said,

    December 6, 2008 at 2:55 am

    Gravatar

    I dunno about nothing `wrong with that edit’ – they removed any mention of the fact that they used to use other search systems. It might have been written clumsily before, but that change does completely agree with the claim by Roy that they were paid to re-write history – it can’t be much clearer than that.

    Nor are they the only PR firm to do it – from politicians to tobacco companies to ‘big pharma’ to `alternative’ medicine to dictatorial regimes, they all pay PR firms to do it all the time. It’s just that Roy’s quite justified beef is with Microsoft and Novell, so he took the opportunity to point it out.

    And the current state of any page is irrelevant – i.e. the ability of wikipedia to `repair’ itself or not – the intentions of the incremental edits are often clear and stand on their own regardless.

    This sort of interference has made wikipedia a terrible and sad waste of human effort. Little if anything can be trusted to be impartial, there or really just about anywhere else on the web where ‘interested parties’ can freely comment.

  3. G. Michaels said,

    December 6, 2008 at 3:36 am

    Gravatar

    they removed any mention of the fact that they used to use other search systems.

    Wrong. See here, which is the last edit of that type. They restructured the paragraph and left that in. The other two edits are the addition of the languages under which MSN was available.

    but that change does completely agree with the claim by Roy that they were paid to re-write history – it can’t be much clearer than that.

    What the fuck?

    so he took the opportunity to point it out.

    Too bad it proved absolutely nothing, isn’t it?

    And the current state of any page is irrelevant

    More to the point, the checks and balances WP has work exceedingly well, and they have been able to fight this type of thing very efficiently – assuming of course these edits actually matched that BoycottBoy is saying about them. The current state of an article does matter because it’s the accumulation of work by dozens (if not hundreds) of people over time, and the application of those checks and balances. I know, I worked on most of the Java/Apache/Jakarta articles on there. What happened three or four years ago is irrelevant at best, especially if any actually damaging or misleading information was quickly caught and removed.

    Even assuming for a second that again, these edits actually proved anything, I would like to see current evidence from Roy that this is happening, considering he just took the opportunity to point it out. Surely there is some sort of pattern that can be observed and pointed out? Something that proves the implications made in this post?

    a terrible and sad waste of human effort.

    Speak for yourself, I love Wikipedia. To suggest that it is a waste of anything is stupid at best, especially if your opinion of the site is being colored by intentionally misleading things like these. Try thinking for yourself instead of mindlessly slurping up whatever vindictive people with agendas throw at you.

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  4. AlexH said,

    December 6, 2008 at 5:43 am

    Gravatar

    Obvious bias and wikipedia are clearly unaware of them!

    Quick, someone get my shotgun…

  5. pcolon said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:05 am

    Gravatar

    To suggest that it is a waste of anything is stupid at best

    Giving no importance to what another individual believes does not help advance your point of view. Others will ignore you.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:24 am

    Gravatar

    That’s just two IPs from a large company. I don’t know the rest, but there is one ‘smoking gun’, so to speak.

  7. AlexH said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:32 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: but there is also evidence that they’re extremely clear about who they are when they make edits.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:33 am

    Gravatar

    It doesn’t make it OK.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:41 am

    Gravatar

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waggener_Edstrom

    “O’Dwyer’s PR lists Waggener Edstrom as earning $92,303,000 in net fees in 2006, up 11.2% on the previous year. It notes the firm has 629 employees.”

    That’s quite an army of deceptive people (the definition of marketing) they got there.

  10. AlexH said,

    December 6, 2008 at 6:57 am

    Gravatar

    The very definition of shooting the messenger…

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 7:11 am

    Gravatar

    How so? I’m showing you that hundreds of people are paid to brush up Microsoft’s image. The disclosure does not change the act.

  12. AlexH said,

    December 6, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Gravatar

    Because nothing you’ve shown is them doing the things you say they’re doing. You make noises about them editing “Windows Genuine Advantage”, and the reality is that they removed the work “On”. You moan about the MSN edit, which in reality was a restructuring and some extra facts.

    You’re pointing at the people but not at anything they’re doing “wrong”: you’re shooting the messenger by complaining about edits without looking at the content of the edits.

    If they were promoting Microsoft advertising in Wikipedia, it would be pretty easy to a. show where that’s happening, b. get their proxy IPs and/or users warned and/or blocked.

  13. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 7:54 am

    Gravatar

    a restructuring and some extra facts.

    That’s marketing, i.e. promotion in Wikipedia.

  14. AlexH said,

    December 6, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Gravatar

    Adding facts isn’t “marketing”. Neither is splitting a paragraph in two.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 6, 2008 at 8:03 am

    Gravatar

    Adding facts isn’t “marketing”.

    If they are paid to do so, it is.

  16. Bob said,

    December 7, 2008 at 8:25 am

    Gravatar

    Please enlighten us why people paid to revise some factual, relevant and (otherwise) neutrally biased factual information is bad. The examples of edits that were presented were shown to be correct and on target.

  17. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 7, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Gravatar

    Companies are not permitted to edit the articles about them (Phorm folks tried this). Here you have Microsoft’s marketing people brushing up an article about a Microsoft product.

  18. Bob said,

    December 7, 2008 at 9:30 am

    Gravatar

    Companies are not permitted to edit the articles about them

    I’m sorry, I missed the memo. Who was it that said that companies are not allowed to do this?

  19. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 7, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Gravatar

    I think that Jimmy Wales did. It does for biographies too.

  20. David Gerard said,

    December 7, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Gravatar

    We have huge amounts of edits from Microsoft computers, and mosty their stuff is quite good and worthwhile!

    I was involved in sorting out the mess over Rick Jelliffe being hired to edit the OOXML article. I encouraged them to, rather than edit the article directly, instead be available and contribute on the talk page.

    You need the people involved in an issue to have their opinions noted where noteworthy. It’s when they do it in a way that is anywhere less than utterly upfront and transparent that it gets problematic, as a zillion PR agencies trying it on on Wikipedia have discovered to their dismay. Applies to Microsoft too.

    They could get most of what they want just by being upfront and honest, y’know.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts