You'll just have to be careful when you import any ongoing existing Word/Excel documents into Google Docs. It's only the importing process that will lose that info. After that, Google Docs/Google Spreadsheets will track any changes that are made within it.
Yeah, and Google Docs helpfully removes change tracking from documents created in OpenOffice.org or Symphony and saved in ODF (any version), too. I'm looking forward to the flood of complaints about IBM and Oracle writing change-tracking metadata that Google Docs loses on import.;-)
Who needs standards like ODF and OXML when Google has a nice proprietary change-tracking approach we can all use? ROFL
The Wikipedia page is already much better, so I think that's a results-oriented way to look at it. It will be interesting to see whether others agree with your analysis.:-)
It's a good question. I had tried to address some things myself (as you can see in the discussion page on that entry), but was reluctant to get aggressive because of how people might perceive "Microsoft" changing the entry. And some things were being decided by consensus that I believe are reasonably considered purely factual issues.
I've also since learned that Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules state "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors." That's something I should have known before floating the idea, of course, but it also seems to confirm that I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to correct the page in any way.
Actually, Rick has not been paid anything at all on this. I suggested it, he said he'd float it on his blog and see what people think then make his decision, and that's where it stands currently.
The premise of this thread is a lie. Nobody ever contacted Rick and asked him to "make edits and corrections favorable to" Microsoft. Also, nobody from Microsoft PR contacted him. I am the person who contacted Rick, and I am a technical evangelist specializing in the Open XML file formats. And here is what I asked Rick to do:
"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... Would you have any interest or availability to do some of this kind of work? 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."
"Feel free to say anything at all on your blog about the process, about our communication with you on matters related to Open XML, or anything else. We don't need to "approve" anything you have to say, our goal is simply to get more informed voices into the debate... feel free to state your own opinion."
I understand and accept that longwinded discussions of lies and their theoretical ramifications is a fascinating hobby for some, but since it's 100% my own personal actions that you're talking about, I just want to be very clear: the premise of this thread is a lie. Wikipedia's definition of "Microsoft (sic) Office Open XML" is not fact-based, and I think it would be a good thing if there were more participation by persons like Rick who are knowledgeable and interested in the actual facts of file formats, and less participation (or at least less influence) by those with specific agendas based on specific corporate interests.
Call Microsoft evil if you must, but in this case it's Doug Mahugh you're talking about. PR didn't know I contacted Rick. Hell, my own manager didn't know, although it seems likely he knows by now. You're talking about my actions alone, so I think my opinion is relevant. And in my opinion, the premise of this thread is a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll just have to be careful when you import any ongoing existing Word/Excel documents into Google Docs. It's only the importing process that will lose that info. After that, Google Docs/Google Spreadsheets will track any changes that are made within it.
Yeah, and Google Docs helpfully removes change tracking from documents created in OpenOffice.org or Symphony and saved in ODF (any version), too. I'm looking forward to the flood of complaints about IBM and Oracle writing change-tracking metadata that Google Docs loses on import. ;-)
Who needs standards like ODF and OXML when Google has a nice proprietary change-tracking approach we can all use? ROFL
> on time and under-budget
:-)
The Wikipedia page is already much better, so I think that's a results-oriented way to look at it. It will be interesting to see whether others agree with your analysis.
It's a good question. I had tried to address some things myself (as you can see in the discussion page on that entry), but was reluctant to get aggressive because of how people might perceive "Microsoft" changing the entry. And some things were being decided by consensus that I believe are reasonably considered purely factual issues. I've also since learned that Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules state "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors." That's something I should have known before floating the idea, of course, but it also seems to confirm that I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to correct the page in any way.
Actually, Rick has not been paid anything at all on this. I suggested it, he said he'd float it on his blog and see what people think then make his decision, and that's where it stands currently.
The premise of this thread is a lie. Nobody ever contacted Rick and asked him to "make edits and corrections favorable to" Microsoft. Also, nobody from Microsoft PR contacted him. I am the person who contacted Rick, and I am a technical evangelist specializing in the Open XML file formats. And here is what I asked Rick to do:
"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 ... Would you have any interest or availability to do some of this kind of work? 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."
... feel free to state your own opinion."
"Feel free to say anything at all on your blog about the process, about our communication with you on matters related to Open XML, or anything else. We don't need to "approve" anything you have to say, our goal is simply to get more informed voices into the debate
I understand and accept that longwinded discussions of lies and their theoretical ramifications is a fascinating hobby for some, but since it's 100% my own personal actions that you're talking about, I just want to be very clear: the premise of this thread is a lie. Wikipedia's definition of "Microsoft (sic) Office Open XML" is not fact-based, and I think it would be a good thing if there were more participation by persons like Rick who are knowledgeable and interested in the actual facts of file formats, and less participation (or at least less influence) by those with specific agendas based on specific corporate interests.
Call Microsoft evil if you must, but in this case it's Doug Mahugh you're talking about. PR didn't know I contacted Rick. Hell, my own manager didn't know, although it seems likely he knows by now. You're talking about my actions alone, so I think my opinion is relevant. And in my opinion, the premise of this thread is a lie.
- Doug