Microsoft sounds out guy to improve entries as allowed by Wikipedia rules and says it is no secret and the guy discusses it in a blog but still hasn't done any edits and hasn't talked money yet
May not be much of a title, but at least it speaks the truth.
But it is interesting that at least on the face of what the Wikipedia guidelines say, the entire premise of all the newspaper articles is actually wrong. We are not talking about a conflict of interest that is banned, we are talking about, at the most, the potential of an appearance of a conflict of interest for which there are non-absolute guidelines.
I wonder if we will see any newspapers or press printing retractions apologizing to me. It is what I would like. They have published my name far and wide in connection with shady allegations. A headline like “Microsoft sounds out guy to improve entries as allowed by Wikipedia rules and says it is no secret and the guy discusses it in a blog but still hasn’t done any edits and hasn’t talked money yet” is not much of a headline is it. If you look at the AP article at CNN when setting up Jimmy Wales’ comments “paying for copy is a no-no.” But they are not paying for copy, they are paying for me to improve technical material on a prospective ISO standard (that they and others would be using.)
DISCLAIMER: None of what I write on this blog or elsewhere can or should in any way be seen as the opinion(s) of O’Reilly Media and/or any of their affiliates. This is stated elsewhere, though it doesn’t hurt to make sure this point is understood.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are my own. My employer is me; I’m an independent contractor; I am not paid to write blog entries for O’Reilly, though have signed contracts in the past and plan to sign more contracts in the future to write other material such as books and articles; I write entries here on my O’ReillyNet blog because I,
… was lucky enough to have been given an opportunity to do so.
… enjoy writing and interacting with the community in regards to topics I believe to be both of interest and/or importance to the community at large.
… believe that the merger of independent voices with large, well established, and respected media companies (such as O’Reilly Media) is an important step to ensure that independent voices can still be heard, while maintaining the opportunities that a large, well established, and respected media company provides.
… there are plenty of other reasons. Perhaps I will share some more of them with you in the future.
To Rick: I am an *independent* strong supporter of you, your work, and particular to this situation, stand *completely* behind you in all of this. I represent one of *many* people I have spoken with (both through written and verbal communication; “spoken” used metaphorically more than anything else) who feel the same way. Stay strong!