The current article we are working to improve is Microsoft Word, and the aim for this page is to expand it, revert vandalism, and verify certain information that has become inaccurate over the years, as well as gaining more attention as any and all changes have been either unconstructive or by a singular user. The editor that has the most edits and improvements to this page will earn a barnstar of their choice. The second and third person will also earn one, but one that is pre-decided.
Once a user has joined our WikiProject please welcome them by using the template {{subst:Microsoftwel}}.
We need more members! Invite as many editors (who are working on Microsoft related articles) as you can! Use the above mentioned invitational template on the user talk pages of possbile members!
Welcome to the Microsoft notice board. Microsoft is one of the largest companies, technology or not, in the world today. They are also one of the most controversial. Speak about Microsoft to a technologist, and you'll almost always get an interesting reaction. Sometimes the reaction is one of hatred of their business practices, sometimes it will be to express disgust at what that person considers a bad product. On the other extreme, there are those who support Microsoft and think its one of the greatest companies ever formed, having brought PCs to the masses. Probably more telling, however, is that if you ask a non-technical computer user what they think about Microsoft, they won't give a reaction like this at all. They'll simply just say it's a company that makes software tools that they need to use.
Either way, Microsoft articles are not well documented on Wikipedia. This notice board is the first step in fixing all that. We encourage you to post what you think we should do to get Wikipedia up to speed on such a huge topic as Microsoft!
No matter where you stand on Microsoft, it's a good idea to update these articles. As I once said in my FAC nomination: know thy enemy. Just because I don't like Microsoft, doesn't mean that I shouldn't know about them!
Anyway, I do hope this takes off. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would love a Wikiproject, but I find it hard to structure them. If you wanted to start it, I would be most happy for you to do this! in the meantime I would like to discuss MS issues here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Ta bu shi da yu for setting this up. I hope to contribute and if you'd like my help on anything specific, just ask. SchmuckyTheCat 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool! My first poster :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am in favor of making articles of all notable subjects as complete as possible, even regarding companies and products I don't like. So this is certainly a worthy effort. However, it's always important to include criticisms in said articles, esp. noting that articles about open-source products often include healthy critical text within them. — Stevie is the man!Talk | Work 19:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. However, just remember that criticisms must not be original research, and must be properly sourced and placed in the correct context. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sourcing said criticisms should be enormously easy to do. :) — Stevie is the man!Talk | Work 19:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
You might be suprised :-) But by all means, I encourage you to add them in a neutral fashion. Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OSS FUD
The Wikipedia largely represents the opinion of liberal, OSS (open source software) advocates. The nature of an 'open' encyclopedia attracts this crowd. Most of them appear to have a hard-wired hang-up with Microsoft (and corporations in general) and would like to believe that MS's alleged unfair business practise is the reason that OSS hasn't really taken off on the consumer desktop. Such OSS advocates use conspiracy theory and annecdote in an attempt to demonstrate a malign motivation behind each of Microsoft's technical / business decisions.
The Internet Explorer article was a prime example of OSS FUD against Microsoft's products, although luckily most of the vitriol has been separated into a separate article (Criticisms of Internet Explorer). The anti-MS brigade got busy:
waxing lyrical about a handful of rendering bugs
exaggerating the significance of a US-CERT "recommendation against using IE" (this boiled down to the suggestion of using an alternative browser as one of seven possible solutions to an out-of-date vulnerability report, written last year by Art Manion)
using POV quotes from "security experts" who make money out of exposing MS vulnerabilities (eg Mark Maifrett, who was criticised for mass-publicising the details of a vulnerability, leading to the creation of the Code Red worm - Maifrett was simultaneously selling software to prevent against such attacks) [1]
I might just point out that Mark is a security consultant and fairly well known. I'd also like to point out that The Register considers us useless anyway. Just a thought. I'm not going to enter into this point too much! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
taking every opportunity to criticise the browser's support for the latest CSS/XHTML standards
Bugs in CSS/XHTML should be noted, but in context. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
devoting a lengthy portion of the article to "Removing Internet Explorer," with many presumptious comments suggesting reasons why users would want to do this. This is despite the fact that removing IE disables Windows Update, leaving the PC open to new security vulnerabilities
focussing on the anti-trust case against MS (and less so on the fact that it was dismissed due to the judge's well-known anti-MS bias)
Yeah? Judge Jackson is a known proponent of free trade and does not usually support govt interference. His track record backs this up. If you read the trial, you'd see MS stonewalled the entire time. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears that your pro-MS bias is just as strong as the anti-MS bias you complain about. In the United States v. Microsoft article under the timeline, it reads "Sept. 26, 2000: Supreme Court declines to hear Microsoft's appeal of Jackson's decision, sending the case to a federal appeals court. The appeals court later overturns some parts of Judge Jackson's remedy, though not the core findings, and send the matter back to the lower court." The core findings were upheld. A later settlement (not accepted by all state plaintiffs, by the way) merely overturned Judge Jackson's solution of breaking up Microsoft. — Stevie is the man!Talk | Work 19:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
assuming that MS's implementation of ECMAScript was an example of 'Embrace, Extend and Extinguish' (a popular Microsoft conspiracy theory)
True? But one should note that ECMAScript came after JavaScript and JScript. It is not the origin. --minghong 18:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
advertising the OSS browser Firefox as an alternative to Internet Explorer in the context of every criticism
True. Perhaps this was not such a good idea. Mention of it's competitors should happen, but not throughout the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Throughout? Maybe you are referring to previous revisions? Because now there is only one mention of Firefox in the Internet Explorer article (not sure about sub-articles through). There's not too much, right? --minghong 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was talking about the previous version of the article, the article looks OK to me now. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Man... Let's forget the past and head to the future. :-) --minghong 05:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting for a moment that IE6 is perfect. However, it is simply wrong for a Wikipedia article to become a feeding frenzy for advocates of the competition. --Beachy 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Beachy. Though I disagree with some of them, I think it's good to see that you are on board here - your input as to when we are getting POV will be most valuable. (incidently, I'd like to state for the record that I was going to invite Beachy here via his talk page, only our work Internet connection went down then I got really busy. He beat me to it!) Beachy's points are exactly why I made this notice board. I'd like to see us write NPOV, factual pieces about MS products. It doesn't help anyone if our articles are no good! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ta bu shi da yu --Beachy 05:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat what Ta bu shi da yu has already mentioned. Be constructive. Again, it is not a discussion page for Internet Explorer. So it is better to avoid focusing on a single MS product and discuss the general direction that we should follow. --minghong 18:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree that this is not the talk page for IE, but as an example it's quite fine to use here! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Err where did Ta bu mention about the connection between Wikipedia and OSS? Or specific instances of anti-MS POV? Stop pretending to be an overseer of the forum, Minghong. Haven't you got some Firefox Spreading to busy yourself with? --Beachy 21:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel that this is a little unfair. I don't see where Minghong is acting like an overseer of this forum. I haven't mentioned OSS vs Microsoft, true, but at the same time documenting this conflict would probably be a good idea and best handled on Wikipedia. I should note that I not only fear anti-MS POV but also pro-MS POV to an equal extent. MS have done some dodgy things, let's not shy away from them. MS have done some great things - brought computing to the masses is just one thing I can think of - so let's not shy away from those things either! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a little bored of Minghong throwing the wikipedia rulebook at people, or telling them to "be constructive." He seems to particularly enjoy using such "authority" on those who don't share his point of view (which happens to be resolutely pro-OSS and Firefox). I believe that noone has the right to delete or strikethrough other people's contributions on talk pages, for example, and I've seen Minghong do this on more than one occasion. --Beachy 05:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While Beachy's note is a little inflammatory, he does have a point. Many articles here have been subject to unacceptable anti-MS POV. Look at what happened in Trusted computing a while back. Several users repeatedly inserted text stating that Microsoft's TC initiative was surely an attempt to lock out competing operating systems and spy on users. Unfortunately, some editors who normally adhere to the NPOV policy can't help taking jabs at Microsoft. They're an easy target around these parts. I hope this project can centralize efforts to present Microsoft in a neutral light. Maybe this conversation should go on the talk page, though. Rhobite 18:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Bingo. That's what I'm hoping. Invidual talk page disputes are great, but are limited to those who monitor those articles. For a large topic like MS articles, this page will be great. Especially as there is some anti-MS bias here (myself included, full disclosure). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree. The problem of Beachy and his edits is that it is always inflammatory. It is unprofessional, considering he is a undergraduate (or graduate?) of computer science. Anyway, this is not a talk page of Beachy, so don't add any more unnecessary comment here. --minghong 07:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Telling people what they should and should not be talking about (again), Minghong? You and I are equals here; let's not forget that, eh? --Beachy 04:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a professional, there are something he/she should do and shouldn't do. That makes prefect sense. Again, this is not your user talk page, so I'm going to stop here. Please don't reply. --minghong 05:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lists
I was thinking we should make an article that lists Microsoft related topics. Something like List of Microsoft topics. I realise that a category will do this also, but I'd like to order it. It would sort of be a list of lists, and will help us coordinate our efforts on fixing up MS articles. Then we could submit it to WP:FLC. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Sometimes people will complain about wanting a category instead — why not do both?--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Categories are a mess when it comes to Microsoft. :) Maybe once we get the list sorted then we can work on the categories. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering the best way of getting this list off the ground. Any suggestions? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, have made a start on this. Have a look! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've also started categorising this stuff a bit better. We have more than I realised! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd say, besides the three sections (of 10): "lists," "Events," and "Misc.", this really is, and could be better as a List of Microsoft products (which is a redirect to Microsoft). That kind of defined-scope list is inherently more referenceable, leadable, even featurable. I mean, what kind of lead or references can you have for something as vague as "topics"? And where's all the MS Office and word processing products? --Dmcdevit 20:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
MSN, Hotmail (still to be included) and Passport are all services provided by Microsoft. Anti-trust (which is an MS article) should be included to this list, and this is also not a product. For the Office products, see List of Microsoft software. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, my name, was off, but you see what I mean I hope. Whereas "topics" is a vaguely ill-defined scope that will hinder featuring, some list that covered software, services, hardware (I saw mouse and keyboard on that list), etc. with a name that is perhaps better than "products" (as I can see the confusion with services), would seem like a better idea to me. --Dmcdevit 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I hope to turn it into a list of lists and have all of those topics be placed in some sort of list that is not on that page. It will be broader than just a products scope. Hence the broad term "topics". - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Microsoft studies
I have created an article that will attempt to briefly describe all the ones we find. It might need to be turned into an umbrella article referencing more specific articles. We'll see how it goes. The article is Studies related to Microsoft. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are those studies about Microsoft or studies made up by Microsoft? It's been well documented that MS pays for various studies as long as they show what they want to see. Elfguy01:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's known that "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux is pure pay-for-publish studies. FUD is a very common act by Microsoft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by201.58.139.78 (talk • contribs) .
Folks, The .NET project is alive now. Whoever is interested, please help by participating in the project. It's estimated that only 5% of the job is done. It was suggested that the project would use this notice board for the time being before we reach a suffecient number of participants. Cheers -- Svest 03:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I don't know if there were ever any discussions before the move, nor if the move was initiated by any observers of this noticeboard or members of the (apparently inactive) Microsoft WikiProject. Regardles of my aesthetic objections towards the title (IMHO it sucks), I personally think it is a damaging name change since the article does not collect analyses of Microsoft but rather Criticisms, which has caused "Criticism of Microsoft" to lose its Good Article status.
Although I do see the intent of the editor's name change, in that he/she desires a more balanced view of the criticism towards Microsoft. This in my opinion is better served by the inclusion of rebuttals and responses toward said criticisms, both from Microsoft and its supporters. Not by an idiosyncratic name change.
I agree, though if we could have a new article Analysis of Microsoft that really is about analysises of Microsoft then we could merge this article in there. Anyway, I have moved it back. This name change really totally changed the scope of the entire article, without any corresponding discussion. - Ta bu shi da yu10:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The recently created article Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms is currently somewhat unbalanced and could use some work towards NPOV. Anyone knowledgable on the subject of licensing and the distribution of (either of) the two is invited to edit it. Mfb5218:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I wasn't sure whether I should post this notice here or on the talk page of WikiProject Microsoft. I hope this is the right place. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
