Microsoft Employee Vandalizes Wikipedia TechCrunch Article

The internet just gets weirder and weirder.

On January 24, TechCrunch reported on the now famous scandal in which Microsoft paid a Wikipedian to post favorable material about Microsoft. In this article, TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington expressed sympathy towards Microsoft and took issue with the over-protective cliques that can form among Wikipedia editors (See footnote at bottom).

However, a Microsoft employee named Dare Obasanjo took issue with Arrington’s post, altered the TechCrunch article on Wikipedia, and posting about it on his personal blog. Obasanjo’s aim was to post accusations against TechCrunch on Wikipedia without presenting TechCrunch’s side of the story. According to his blog, this was his political statement demonstrating the Wikipedia community’s unfairness towards Microsoft.

Michael Arrington was furious. In his blog he writes:

I have a suggestion to companies: Request your employees to refrain from attacking journalists who write about you. Respectful disagreement is one thing. This is something completely different.

Later, in response to reader comments, he adds…

No “Roy”, I don’t think I over reacted and I don’t think I’m being a drama queen. I think a representative of Microsoft just vandalized the techcrunch wikipedia page in response to an article I wrote about them and I’m pissed off.

There are now 100 comments posted to this thread. Amazingly, the majority seem to feel Arrington is overreacting. I was stunned to see Arrington on the defensive on his own blog. Personally, I perceive the issue to be pretty black and white in Arrington’s favor. Arrington responds again in this comment post:

Ok so just to summarize: I write a post that is largely pro-Microsoft but contains one or two criticisms of them. A Microsoft employee responds by adding accusations of improper behavior on the TechCrunch Wikipedia entry. And everyone is cool with that?

Does anyone see this as a way to potentially chill free speech? Hello?

This is a very odd and disturbing conflict. I have a lot of friends who are employees of major companies. They are not allowed to communicate with the press in any manner, as stated in their employment contracts. I’m constantly cajoling friends to write content on their company’s ValueWiki stock page and many are simply not allowed.

In my opinion, what Dare Obasanjo did is grounds for dismisal. It is true that everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia. But this should be perceived as a direct retaliation against a journalist who published an article mildly critical of Microsoft. To view the contents of Obasanjo’s Tech Crunch smear campaign, read the TechCrunch Wikipedia article under “Criticisms”. It’s a fairly personal attack.

Michael Arrington responded on the Wikipedia TechCrunch Article Talkpage, claiming the bulk of Obasanjo’s criticisms are untrue and non-encyclopedic. I am inclined to believe him.

I would like to point out that the entire “criticism” section, which has now expanded, was added by a microsoft [Employee] to make a point that Wikipedia is flawed. His point seems to be accurate given what’s happened since. The “criticims” are true only in that people wrote them. I do not believe it is accurate to point to unverified blog posts that say we take money for posts, nor do I think it is accurate to point to a ONA link that I have flat out said was an innacurate statement of what occured and which was written by a paid consultant to big media. Finally, the term “franchise” has legal meaning and is inaccurate. Lastly, if I have violated some wikipedia rules of conduct by writing on this discussion page, I apologize. Frankly, I’m not even sure I’m allowed to read a page that is written about my company, let alone participate in the discussion. – Mike, TechCrunch

Microsoft appears to have even more egg on their face than usual, and apologies to both TechCrunch and the Wikipedia community are warranted. Very, very odd affair.

Footnote: A reader (below) takes issue with my statements that Microsoft actually paid Rick Jeliffe, and that Rick Jeliffe was a Wikipedian. To clarify, Rick Jeliffe was a Wikipedia editor who contributed using IP addresses such as this one. According to his own Wikipedia entry, Jeliffe accepted payment for three days from Microsoft, even after the scandal broke. After accepting Microsoft’s offer (full text of Microsoft’s offer here) he published this open request for Microsoft inaccuracies that he should begin correcting on Wikipedia. Jelliffe maintained his intention to write for Microsoft even after the Dare Obasanjo blog post, (writing, ”Dare’s blog is always a fun read…“) and after the story had been heavily slashdotted. And on January 26, two days after the slashdot, Jelliffe writes that he is accepting payment. He has since made 47 edits to Wikipedia, mostly discussing Microsoft Office XML and the Microsoft section of Open Document Software on those article talk pages. In Jelliffe’s defense, I would say Jelliffe has operated above the board and with full disclosure.


14 Responses to Microsoft Employee Vandalizes Wikipedia TechCrunch Article

  1. Cruella says:

    Hi, I generally agree with your comments. I’ve posted what must be comment #101 on TechCrunch, which I won’t repeat, but more importantly I started a mediation procedure within Wikipedia to handle this as it should be. I’m not a party to any of this but my quick reaction is that yes, Obasanjo is clearly in the wrong in terms of the policies of Wikipedia on how Wikipedia is supposed to function. But in no way am I going to advocate that Obasanjo should lose his job at Microsoft. That’s between him and his employer, and when you get down to it a livelihood is more important than arguing on blogs. For all I know he’s a great product manager who puts out great software. But I do think he’s in the wrong on this issue, and I also think people are overreacting if they think this is a big deal or beyond Wikipedia’s ability to handle internally through process. It’s just a bad article edit and a resulting “edit war,” something relatively uncommon given the huge number of articles but common enough that there are ways to deal.

  2. Jon says:


    Glad to see a Wikipedian on the blog! I’m curious about your mediation procedure. Not sure how to find you on Wikipedia, but I am User:Jonathan_Stokes if you have a chance to point me towards your mediation.


  3. […] not appreciate being bullied by a Microsoft employee. I couldn’t resist blogging the entire Microsoft/TechCrunch fiasco because it’s so bizarre, sad, and fascinating.   5. This is not a temper tantrum so much […]

  4. Cruella says:

    Ha ha! Great list. I think Michael Arrington ought to feel honored to be the target of one of the 5 most famous blogger temper tantrums. I’m not on the list of five most famous anythings.

    Jon, it isn’t my procedure — if anybody owns Wikipedia it’s for sure not me. But I do admire the site and think most of the criticism is misplaced. There are far more germane things to critique than it’s susceptibility to vandalism or schoolkids citing it inappropriately, the two things everyone writes about.

    I’m “User:Wikidemo” there. I’ll send a message to your user page there.

  5. Jon says:

    Thank you Cruella!

    I will be lurking with great interest. Most likely I will not participate as I am not experienced in these matters. But I may pipe in if I feel I can be useful. Thank you for posting that link,


  6. Reinier Post says:

    Your opening shot is ridiculous. Rick Jeliffe is not “a Wikipedian”, whatever that may be; Microsoft did not pay him (although a Microsoft employee did make him an offer to do so); and he was not asked to post favorable material, but *unbiased* material.

    So the rest of what you write is just hot air, as far as I’m concerned.

    A reader.

  7. Jon says:

    Reinier Post,

    If I can respectfully disagree, Jeliffe was a Wikipedian, did accept payment from Microsoft, and did attempt to change Microsoft-related Wikipedia articles. I have added complete proof for all of this to the article above.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify these points.


  8. Reinier Post says:

    Whoops, looks like I missed the statement in Rick Jeliffe’s user profile you so kindly link to, where he says he has already been paid. My apologies for the disinformation.

  9. Chris says:

    Wikipedia is annoying you can’t change anything because of overzealous editors who have no life.

  10. Chris says:

    Wikipedia used to be fun because everyone could put their own thoughts in, now it is a dictatorship run by 40 year old virgins living in their mom’s basement.

  11. Hi, just today discovered this blog but I have to admit that it looks nice. I totally agree with your post. Have a good day, keep up the great work and I’ll definitely follow it.I just got in to the BF BC2 PC Beta for free, check out this youtube video for instructions on how you can do it

  12. MrsAmateur says:

    actually your blog is one of those i will bother to revisit. most i saw today are full of useless informations and advertising. thank you for providing some real content to the world 🙂

  13. Have to say – thanks unbelievably for this blog!!
    You don’t often find a good site which isn’t just trying to scam you anymore 😛

    I’ve already saved it so I can come back to it! 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: