The world of Wiki is in uproar after it turned out that Microsoft (and heaven only knows who else, eh?) has been offering money for Wikipedia post edits and creation.

Dun dun dun, company takes advantage of open encyclopedia to further its own neferious ends (breaking no laws, one might add.) Roberto got a bit up in arms about this in the office, but my debate is that if leftie's and rightie's, fanboys and girls and so forth can wage massive debates on the most inane and obvious topics, what's so wrong with Microsoft & Co moving in to help screw Wikipedia up more than it already is?

Wikipedia is useful, in certain circumstances, but if you use it as your sole reference then you deserve what you get. Bias and anti-bias bias; comma naziism; power trips and stupid debates reign supreme. As Le INQ points out, there is currently a thought provoking debate on whether or not the "Everywhere Girl" should have a Wikipedia entry. In other words, they're debating whether a real person of some interesting note actually exists.

It's not right that Microsoft should offer money for Wikipedia edits. It's just not worth sweating about, given that so many unpaid posters have already screwed the online encyclopedia so well.