194:. I expected to see more details about it on this page, but there is nothing here. Considering this is Microsoft we're talking about, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd paid some marketing agency to expunge that information – although I haven't checked the page's history, and I should probably do that when I have time. Anyway, though, I'm disputing the article's neutrality on these grounds. I hope my explanation is adequate. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Regards,
49:
22:
208:
I looked through the article's history – luckily, it wasn't that much, so I was able to view the whole thing. Looks like the only mention of the controversy (or whatever it should be called) is an external link. I have to wonder why no information was ever added on it – maybe someone was going to do
67:
237:
107:
113:
242:
232:
83:
74:
54:
150:
29:
214:
199:
35:
136:
145:
210:
195:
82:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
167:
141:
218:
203:
171:
154:
226:
163:
79:
183:
66:
48:
160:
191:
187:
186:. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I arrived at this page from
15:
139:
around WS-I is conspicuously absent from this article. --
78:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
28:This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge's
112:This article has not yet received a rating on the
161:Microsoft ploy to block Sun exposed (cnet 2002)
8:
43:
21:
19:
238:Unknown-importance organization articles
45:
7:
209:it and then never got around to it?
72:This article is within the scope of
92:Knowledge:WikiProject Organizations
34:It is of interest to the following
243:WikiProject Organizations articles
95:Template:WikiProject Organizations
14:
233:Unassessed organization articles
65:
47:
20:
1:
204:18:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
86:and see a list of open tasks.
190:– specifically, the section
172:15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
259:
155:09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
114:project's importance scale
219:03:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
111:
75:WikiProject Organizations
60:
42:
98:organization articles
192:Examples in language
30:content assessment
152:
128:
127:
124:
123:
120:
119:
250:
144:
100:
99:
96:
93:
90:
69:
62:
61:
51:
44:
25:
24:
23:
16:
258:
257:
253:
252:
251:
249:
248:
247:
223:
222:
180:
178:NPOV discussion
148:
133:
97:
94:
91:
88:
87:
12:
11:
5:
256:
254:
246:
245:
240:
235:
225:
224:
211:DesertPipeline
196:DesertPipeline
179:
176:
175:
174:
146:
132:
129:
126:
125:
122:
121:
118:
117:
110:
104:
103:
101:
84:the discussion
70:
58:
57:
52:
40:
39:
33:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
255:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
230:
228:
221:
220:
216:
212:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
153:
151:
149:
143:
138:
130:
115:
109:
106:
105:
102:
89:Organizations
85:
81:
80:Organizations
77:
76:
71:
68:
64:
63:
59:
56:
55:Organizations
53:
50:
46:
41:
37:
31:
27:
18:
17:
207:
181:
140:
134:
73:
36:WikiProjects
184:User:Hulmem
137:controversy
131:Controversy
227:Categories
164:ErkDemon
182:Hello,
188:Foobar
32:scale.
215:talk
200:talk
168:talk
142:samj
135:The
108:???
229::
217:)
202:)
170:)
147:in
213:(
198:(
166:(
116:.
38::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
