A bunch of Linux supporters just banded together to create the Linux Foundation, hoping to match the development, legal and marketing power behind Microsoft’s Windows. Still, such an entity was not required to give Redmond a black eye this week, as the “Wikipedia affair,” we’ll call it, was more than sufficient to embarrass Microsoft.

Only a few weeks after causing some scorn for supposedly offering free, Vista-loaded laptops to influential bloggers (this one not included), Microsoft made some not so good news again this week for hatching a plan to pay a Wikipedia contributor to spruce up an entry that did not flatter Microsoft sufficiently.

Just when the backlash started to slap Microsoft in the face, a Redmond regular took aim at those criticizing the move by messing with their own Wikipedia entry.

Now how could any of this ever have turned out well for MS? Granted, there are many examples of “the Amazon effect,” where we all know some of the more glowing reviews, and even some seemingly neutral ones, are coming from those with a vested interest. But shouldn’t Microsoft have known better than to tamper with Wikipedia, which was founded on a transparent, open source ethos?

Just ask Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, whose search for truthiness brought the Wikipedia whip down on him. Don’t mess with the Wikipedia way, you may find yourself banned, ridiculed or worse.

The real lesson this week for Redmond, and for the rest of us, though, may be that there is no way to fake the truly collaborative efforts that make open source projects like Wikipedia work.

[Note from Raven: My apologies to Jay for holding up his first 451 CAOS Theory blog entry. Jay authored the post on Friday, and I was the bottleneck getting this out.]