Slashdot Mirror
Google Donating Bandwidth and Servers to Wikipedia
Armstr0ng writes "According to Dirson's blog, Google plans to help Wikipedia by donating bandwidth and servers to handle part of their increasing load. In fact, there's an official page of Google's proposal to host some of the content of the Wikimedia projects."
Google donating bandwidth for the better of the internet community. If only more internet or tech companies would show some dedication like this into improving the education for the masses over the internet for the people. Hats off to google again.
...when I heard about Google maps. I wondered how long it would take Google to start their own wiki, then I decided they wouldn't be likely to duplicate the efforts of Wikipedia. Didn't occur to me that they might do this instead. Cool.
Google is able to pull off new stuff while sticking to "do no evil" philosophy. And, what more, because of competition from Google, Yahoo has started offering better services (e.g. the Yahoo toolbar for firefox). So, good for the end user.
S
This is a bad idea. Wikipedia is so full of convoluted articles it isn't even funny. Don't get me wrong, there's some good information there, but a lot of articles have information in them that makes you go "WTF!" There is an article about where I live on there, and I noticed it is icorrect, so I edited it. Some guy, who seems to think to article is his baby changed it back. Whenever anyone changes it he changes it back, because he wrote it. According to his user page he also lives here, but he has no idea what the hell he's talking about. He also wrote and polices several other articles related to where I live, and they all present his convoluted and incorrect information. That is the problem with Wikipedia.
Seems like Google hasn't taken to kindly to Microsoft's recent launch of the new MSN Search. Last week they moved Google Local to the front page in an apparent effort to meet Microsoft's localization feature. This move looks to me like an attempt at meeting Microsoft's Encarta integration.
It wouldn't suprise me at all.
Google's goal has always been to collect all information possible and have it in one easy to access source.
5 years ago people laughed at them.
This is deinfetly one of the best ways of them to get closer to that goal.
The gutenberg project is another that is deserving of bandwidth and servers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Google's value to the customer is its ability to get good information to that customer. Anything that improves the general quality of information on the internet improves Google's value to the customer.
The cake is a pie
Classic moves from the dot.com playbook of 1999. Amazon perfected this strategy back when their stock was around $500 per share- they'd announce new categories of sales on a daily basis in the hopes that nobody would notice their P/E was over 1000:1.
Eventually that quit working. In a hurry.
Google needs to solve the problem of people searching a term to get a rough idea of the meaning. They've got it covered for definitions, but more advanced concepts are still wanting.
As it is, say you are interested about what happened in 1033 AD. If you search for "1033" you get a range of pages that have anything to do with 1033 AD, instead you get info abobut RFC 1033, port 1033, california legislation s.1033, and so on. If you search for "1033 AD" you likewise get a wide range of incidental and nearly useless trivia about 1033 AD, with very little in the way of comprehensive overview.
Wikipedia has an entire page on the events of every year starting at around 900 AD, iirc. It should be the first hit for searches like that. Google is looking for a means to justify making it so, without complaint from the wikioids and without complaint from the people stressing over page rank for their site. Expect a section with an automatic overview of the wikipedia entry, similar to how they are placing image search results at the top of some searches now, or like they do with news.
The deal here is that google wants to retain the lead spot for quick reference needs. Wikipedia serves that purpose very well, but I'd say most people don't know to check it out.
"At what point does Google turn from everybody's favorite company, to the next Microsoft?"
When it stops being a usefull tool.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Google seems to understand that knowledge, and the dissemination of knowledge, is power.
If you can provide people the most efficient way of providing information important to them, people will deal with advertisements and other methods to generate revenue, as long as they are inobtrusive.
Wikipedia is a great source for many different types of general knowledge, and while it may not be the ultimate resource for obtaining information about a certain topic, it is a great place to start to get a general overview.
Maybe Google sees this as a great addition their search engine: when searching, a person is supplied with a brief description of the topic at hand and search results to further their research, perhaps grouped into categories. If Google can make themselves a living, breathing entity like Wikipedia has, with input from users, perhaps they can gain an edge over other search engines.
Wikipedia would also be the perfect place to demonstrate their search capability and test new search algorithms: it's got good internal linkage, contributers are well-behaved, it's very high-traffic, and it's got a large document base to work from.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Microsoft also has Encarta. Now google has wikipedia. Anything that stops people being reliant on a Microsoft product (Encarta in this case) is good news for Google as it means less money to Microsoft.
Now why Google has pitted itself against Microsoft I'm not too sure. But with msn search and gmail, they're definitely competing.
Things that work for a semi-controlled, editied Wikipedia don't work for the rest of the 'net.
On the other hand, maybe they could mine it for semantic information from the already partially tagged content somehow.
Gentoo Sucks
Wikipedia is open to anyone who wishes to contribute and gosh, it still works. Content is added constantly and crud is scrubbed off by people who care, sort of like a child growing. Professionally I'm embedded in the Microsoft camp (what's there to fix in the Apple environment after all? And Linux is too much fun -- I get distracted) but I never use Encarta, and I'm constantly referring to Wiki for business and pleasure.
I don't really worry about Microsoft and the water economy -- Carly's treatment of two fine old technology firms show even the biggest and best companies can fall in time. In the long view, the fifty-to-100 year view, what's going to remain in use?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
How about this for a possibility? Wiki is the foremost online encyclopedia, Google, one of the best search engines. So, assuming some amount of traffic on google is just there for "I don't know what x is", Google just points them to "x" wiki article, which is on their own servers. Like the current MW lookup from the top, but more.
Learn more about "x" at Wikipedia.
Display top 10 web results of bajillions.
(instead of the wiki article showing up in the results)
Of course, this will make the wiki explode with vandals "Wow, I can gafitti this place!", but they'll sort it out soon enough.
One thing I have found on Wikipedia is it is politically biased.
Name one entity that isn't. Bias isn't a problem. Hiding it, is.
The closest to genuine problem with Wikipedia is that due to the perverse application of the Neutral Point of View policy, articles aren't OK unless they include all points of view, including the obscure. The truth isn't balanced. It may coincide anywhere on the spectrum from the extreme thesis to the synthesis in the centre. Wikipedia's policy keeps the door a bit too wide open.
Donate unused bandwidth and deduct it from taxes at higher value that its really worth. Get good PR. Its win its win. Well unless you're the government getting screwed out of taxes.
Things that work for a semi-controlled, editied Wikipedia don't work for the rest of the 'net.
True, but isn't it better to test new search technologies on a known quantity before unleashing them on the 'net at large? The Wikipedia database would make a great sandbox for Google to play with.
This is simply a strategic move to compete with Microsoft and it's inclusion of Encarta in MSN Search...
Being able to search nearly all of humanity's knowledge is extremely powerfull. Being able to help create and build the data infastructure that eventually much of the industrilised world will relay on gives each and every one of us intellectual omnipotence.
The fact that anyone with an internet connection now can harness this much power must really disturb the politicians and CEOs who relay on our mediocre education system and centralised media to keep the masses ignorant and those with some knowledge incapable of sharing it. It's difficult to sniff ssh connections on hacked wifi Access Points. It's impossable to regulate freenet, tor, or even most conventional p2p networks. Google and wikipedia offer even more robust and democratic services, but they unfortunatly are very centralised. Google has pledged to do no evil, but I can imagine that the leaders of many hierarchical entities, from Microsoft to the NSA, would love to just watch (much less control) the content of these forces of potential social transformation and enlightnment. If google and wikipedia form a stronger alliance and people begin to use and contribute more, I suspect that the service will risk being shut down if it doesn't sell out to survalience, censorship and marketing/advertising. Google and wikipedia stand out as nonpareil examples of all thats good on the net. They can help each other out, but lets be vigilent to ensure their and our freedom.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
If you want a certain view of a certain whatever represented, go write about it on Everything2. E2 is the other style of encyclopedia, where people write their own entries rather than collaborating, and the assorted writeups generally encompass whatever. Eventually. Sometimes, very eventually. Nonetheless Wikipedia and Everything2 go together like the dictionary and thesaurus. I'd say like the encyclopedia and the internet, but obviously it doesn't work so well as a simile here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the content about Google is inaccurate than Google is free to post a correction, are they not? Is that not one of the big ooh, ahh features of Wikipedia? Second, consider the fact that it costs money for Google to file a lawsuit and what would be the point in agreeing to host content, hosting it, then deciding that you didn't like it and suing the creator over it? Chances are, Google would be laughed out of court.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
With all the "live" data Google has, I'm sure they can make a sizable sandbox to play in...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Now I'm sure that there is no way google would make such an investment if it did not benifit them in some way. And like the above poster mentioned that could mean a testing ground for new search methods. But I get the feeling that on the surface the only difference we might see are links to google in the wikipedia, perhaps a search web bar at the top of the page that uses google. And I also feel for some reason that soon when I am searching on google that my first result could very well be wikipedia.
Here's an idea, the problem that always comes up with Wikipedia is it's lack of "Authority". One of the solutions usualy proposed is to use Wikipedia as a resource from which to produce frozen "authoritive" versions.
Perhaps Google could be planning to handle this themselves. They would still have to comply with the FDL, so anyone could take Google's authoritive version. But that would loose some of the authority (Just because they SAY they copied it from Google doesn't mean they didn't change it), and most people would just use the Google version anyways just becaue it's Google's version.
On the down side, it would still be a lot of work to produce something that would be accepted as a "real encyclopedia".
Why would Google need to host Wikipedia to do that?
*Readers Warning* By reading on, you agree to be exposed to the exact same jokes MANY more times. Slashdotters are so excited that they thought of something sexual, that EVERY SINGLE ONE must post something about G-spots or the such. Just so I dont get flames, I'll include some actuial content. This is not only a great thing for wikipedia, its a great milestone for all things opensource. Look at encarta, there one of the best encyclopedias out there...why...because Microsoft backs them. Now that wikipedia is backed (at least recieves some kind of support) by Google, I think its destiny is changed. Now that google has adopted Wikipedia, I think there will be changes made to both Wikipedia and Google. Two things will happen - First things will change on the wikipedia end, such as google-powered searching for wikipedia, which I think would be a great thing, and mabey less evidentally, google wikk change. Mabey when you search for something, it will provide you with a link to the wikipedia article that corresponds with it. I (I dont know what you think) trust google, to not touch the underlying principals of wikipedia, and dont thing they should do more then mabes add one text line sying who it is hosted by. (NO ADS!) Anyways, if all goes through as plnned this could bring a huge amount of popularity to Wikipedia. (Mabey more trolls too)
Google has far more bandwidth than wikipedia, and if the tight integration this thread suggests is implemented then a significant fraction of Google users will be diverted to wikipedia, vastly increasing the load on it. Wikipedia might not be able to handle the projected usage on its own.
Maybe because Google wants to ensure that Wikipedia has better uptime so they can start doing an "Encyclopedia Result" from Wikipedia on the top of search results. They are adding reliability to the service so they can utilize it without fear of high profile broken links.
The new MSN search offers searching through Encarta, maybe Google plans to offer searching through Wikipedia in the future?
--
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
I disagree. If you know they have a problem and you want that problem solved, then offer something specifically to solve that problem. This is equivalent to the idea of buying a hungry beggar cash or feeding him. I'd much prefer to feed them than give them handfuls of pocket change.