"Bing" "microsoft vs stacker wikipedia". The first result is a wikipedia page on disk partitioning.
Google the same, you get as the first three results wikipedia pages on Stac Electronics and MS-DOS, and as the third result this HN page.
As you can see, Google did what you wanted. However, the litigation was between Stac Electronics and Microsoft, so now try "microsoft vs stac wikipedia".
Bing: returns wikipedia category "microsoft criticisms" and the third result is "microsoft litigation".
Google: returns the wikipedia pages "stac electronics" and "microsoft litigation".
The conclusions I draw from this is that Bing and Google just have very different algorithms, relatively speaking. Wikipedia appears to have a much lower ranking in Bing than Google, at least in cases where there isn't a page with a very similar name. Here are two searches to compare:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+vs+stachttp://www.google.com/#q=microsoft+vs+stac
While I understand why people bash MS, as well as Google (I agree with most of it), I think sometimes its best to take an unbiased look. I cannot see any attempt by MS to remove useful results; the first one is the original text of the lawsuit!
As you can see, Google did what you wanted. However, the litigation was between Stac Electronics and Microsoft, so now try "microsoft vs stac wikipedia". Bing: returns wikipedia category "microsoft criticisms" and the third result is "microsoft litigation". Google: returns the wikipedia pages "stac electronics" and "microsoft litigation".
The conclusions I draw from this is that Bing and Google just have very different algorithms, relatively speaking. Wikipedia appears to have a much lower ranking in Bing than Google, at least in cases where there isn't a page with a very similar name. Here are two searches to compare: http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+vs+stac http://www.google.com/#q=microsoft+vs+stac
While I understand why people bash MS, as well as Google (I agree with most of it), I think sometimes its best to take an unbiased look. I cannot see any attempt by MS to remove useful results; the first one is the original text of the lawsuit!