Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, prides itself on the fact that articles are unbiased. This is achieved by allowing any non-biased user to edit a Wikipedia article. The theory is that many eyes on an article will ensure the accuracy of that article. It seems to work too, research published in Nature showed that wikipedia is comparable in accuracy to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The Wikipedia team have created a set of guidelines to help ensure that articles are written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). For example, edits from contributors deemed to have a conflict of interest with the central requirement for impartiality will be blocked or removed. So, it is not acceptable for Microsoft to employ a contractor to correct a Wikipedia articles relating to Microsoft’s OpenXML format, yet that is exactly what they have recently done.
Perhaps predictably, Wikipedia have expressed their concern about this move. Apparently the preferred approach would have been to use the discussion page for the article to describe any errors and to encourage an impartial author to correct them.
Microsoft claim that they have tried to flag the errors to volunteer editors, but changes were not made. As a result they felt the need to seek an independent expert to determine what changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia.
What I find interesting about this particular case is that Microsoft appear to have approached this in what I consider to be acceptable way. They sought an independent expert and asked them to edit the articles without interference from Microsoft staff. The email to Rick Jelliffe said:
“Wikipedia has an entry on Open XML that has a lot of slanted language, and we’d like for them to make it more objective but we feel that it would be best if a non-Microsoft person were the source of any corrections… Your reputation as a leading voice in the XML community would carry a lot of credibility, so your name came up in a discussion of the Wikipedia situation today.”
The e-mail also encouraged Jeliffe to post details of the agreement on his blog at oreillynet.com, which he did. Furthermore, Microsoft also reassured Jelliffe that they did not require approval rights for any edits to the article.
So just what is wrong with this transparent arrangement?
Perhaps Jeliffe is biased towards Microsoft and therefore not an impartial editor. Well, according to his blog, Jeliffe is a Linux user, a Java programmer and dabbles in open source development. He supported the Massachusetts government’s adoption of the OpenDocument format, a competitor to Microsoft’s OpenXML. He also participates in a number of ISO standards, often finding himself taking a counter view to the larger organisations when it comes to standards.
He certainly doesn’t sound biased, yet he is the person that Microsoft chose to employ, and he wants to accept, saying “FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see.”
This whole episode worries me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m far from a big fan of Microsoft, but like Jeliffe I get enraged at misinformation, wherever it comes from.
Is it really so wrong for Microsoft (or anyone else) to pay an independent writer to correct errors without interference from the sponsor?
Surely, as soon as the “independent writer” recieves payment from someone with a vested interest in their subject matter, they cease to be an “independent writer”?
Receiving payment does not make one biased automatically. It is true that there is the potential for a conflict, but if the payment does not include a need to have edits reviewed and the only edits requested are errors that are seen by the editor, not ones that have been identified by the employer it cannot be assumed that bias will emerge.
If this deal were done under the table and hidden away I’d be more concerned. But if the way it has been reported all MS are doing is ensuring that someone who understands the complex process of standards ratification is available to edit the page.
Other editors are able to see any edits made by Jeliffe and revert them if they show any form of bias. By announcing that he was being paid to do this he has drawn the attention of the whole blogsphere and therefore created hundreds of new potential editors for that page.
What does “independent” mean? Does payment indeed preclude independence? OSS Watch is a funded advisory service. Everyone in the team is “paid”. Does that mean we can’t be independent, either individually or as an organisation? As ever in these cases, you can’t tell whether you have arrived at the structure of a problem unless you can replace all the names with variables and still have the problem.
Does it make a difference who does the paying? Or what kind of brief they give you?
Indeed, if I pay you to be independent, am I involved in a performative contradiction, where the very act of doing something means that I haven’t done it?
An update on this interesting case.
Wikipedia have a reward board that allows anyone to offer payment for independent contribution:
“The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task.”
So even Wikipedia don’t feel that a payment necessarily leads to a compromised neutrality.
Independent evaluators, examiners etc get paid often by the body (e.g. university) they’re evaluating. In my experience paying someone is no guarantee of a favourable report.