Is this really such a bad thing?

Ok, just had to write a comment on this article I just read.

From what I understand there's a WikiPedia entry regarding an open standards document format that Microsoft felt was slanted and had some inaccuracies. They asked a third party to review the article, with the caveat that Microsoft would have no option to review what changes he would suggest, and they would pay him for the time he spent researching and making the changes he felt were required.

This has apparently come about because this article was 'apparently' heavily biased by people related to IBM, and all of Microsofts attempts to make changes or corrections were rejected because they are involved in the article and are not considered 'unbiased'.

At first glance it seems like this was a very very bad thing for Microsoft to do, until you start to read more about the background. I'm curious as to how the slanted article got approved in Wikipedia, and why it wasn't pruned and caught when it was first submitted.

Yes, technically what Microsoft did goes against the Wikipedia ruels, but I honestly didn't have an issue with Microsoft asking a third party to review an article and make the changes that the THIRD PARTY felt were necessary without any input or feedback from Microsoft.

Am I missing something? Probably, I'll do some checking into the article and see how biased it really is and might make a follow up based on what I find.