Home > Computers and Internet > Techno-Bigots Unite! Wikipedia Controversy Erupts Around .NET Technologies

Techno-Bigots Unite! Wikipedia Controversy Erupts Around .NET Technologies

25-Jan-07 03:49 pm EDT Leave a comment Go to comments

An evolving story appeared in my mailbox today – concerning Microsoft approaching some independent contributors to the online encyclopedia service Wikipedia.org to write entries concerning its technology offerings.  According to the report, there’s some undisclosed number of Wikipedia users taking issue with the idea conceptually, in part, because the Microsoft offer reportedly included some kind of cash award for doing the work, characterized by the software giant as "corrections".

Ever on the alert for "techno-bigotry" (as I too like to "correct" disinformation that so frequently arises online), I decided to examine some of the more technical of the entries on Wikipedia to see for myself if, in fact, Microsoft would be well-founded in taking this kind of action.  And, yet again, I did find a fair bit of evidence to support the notion that some of the characterizations and language could be misleading.

Take for example the article concerning the C# programming language – a technology with which I would say I’m intimately acquainted.  This article is very descriptive and I’d even say mostly accurate.  But in places there’s some rather pejorative wording, from a "tecchie’ point of view, if not generally:

"C# has a procedural, object-oriented syntax, based on C++…"
          — http://en.wikipedia.org/C_Sharp, January 25, 2007

I mean, I can’t readily say what inspired C# exactly – one could likely competently argued it had many different bases; including Java, SmallTalk, C/C++, Delphi, Visual Basic, etc.  I can certainly see elements of all of these present in the syntax for C# under Microsoft’s .NET Framework v1.1 and v2.0.  In the latter case, there are even some newer elements that seem to be germane to .NET technologies (albeit not C# specifically).  Were those inspired by C++ also?  Not likely – and to suggest it is so will certainly confuse non-technical folks who read the article in question making them think there’s virtually no difference between C++ and C#.  (And, in fact, the two languages are completely different.)

Then there’s the question about the word procedural.  To my understanding, a procedural language is inherently different from an object-oriented language in that the former executes lines of code in some kind of sequential way, typically governed by a defined "main()" function or ‘mainline’, whereas the latter has no such specific governance and application logic is encapsulated into discrete units (called ‘objects’) which are processed in a fashion that is procedurally independent (i.e. could be the result of either system-generated events such as database triggers, or by user-generated events such as clicking a button or entering certain data) or other systemically-defined factors outside of the language’s implementation.  C# is much more the latter, than the former.

Beyond this, however, one could compare the wording of the Java article on Wikipedia with its C# counterpart – and find no reference to the word procedural.  Indeed, in what respects C# is procedural and Java is not is an obvious question; anywhere C# can be characterized as procedural, there certainly exists a parallel one could draw in Java syntax.

And these observations reflect only one small part of the C# article.  Under the discussions tab (in the Wikipedia interface) one finds hundreds of other references cited in the article as points of controversy.  Many are about the characterizations made, and even at that – the list of objections presented as of this date is far from comprehensive.  One could competently make, by my quick survey, a goodly number of others – especially if one gets nit-picky (the way some critiques of Wikipedia edits can be).

In short, I don’t see there as being any problem with Microsoft electing to modify representations made about its own technologies – so long as the other rules of Wikipedia are respected, in that these changes are subject to the usual peer-review-edit processes which currently exist.  Indeed, such a move should, ideally, result in more accurate information since Microsoft, after all, is the builder of these technologies in the first place.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Terry Glavin


Techno Manor

Geek's Corner


an IT blog.. and an occasional rant

Yammer Site Status

Is Yammer down? Offline? Broken? Undergoing scheduled maintenance? When will it be back? Find out here.


A journey full of wonderful experiences

Azure and beyond

My thoughts on Microsoft Azure and cloud technologies


Startup and Technology News

Ottawa Citizen

Ottawa Latest News, Breaking Headlines & Sports

National Post

Canadian News, World News and Breaking Headlines

Targeted individuals's

One Government to rule them all.

Joey Li's IT Zone

Everything about IT


Unravelling the magik of code...

The Bike Escape

Because Cycling is Life

The Ross Report

Now you know where you need to know more...

Lights in the Dark

A journal of space exploration

Strength Rehabilitation Institute

Bridging the gap between physiotherapy and exercise.

Little Girl's Mostly Linux Blog

Nothing to see here. Move along...

David Eedle

Geek, tech, programmer, business owner. Serial starter of things. Occasional finisher. Oh, and please don't call me Dave.

Vector Beta

Doling out sparks of information

%d bloggers like this: