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 22/11/2017: Qt 5.9.3 Released, FCC v the Internet

    Links for the day



  2. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  4. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  5. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  6. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  7. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  8. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  9. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  10. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  11. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  12. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  13. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  14. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  15. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  16. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  17. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  18. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  19. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  20. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  21. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  22. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  23. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  24. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  25. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  26. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  27. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  28. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  29. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  30. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)


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