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."
But others could do this, too? So maybe Wiki can limit the ability of others to do this, and give this ability exclusively to Google?
What I am trying to ascertain is what value can Wiki give google other than advert space, which is apparently not part of the current deal?
I've never been a fan on Wikipedia, its always seen as a rather frowned upon source of information (rightly so in some cases).
But with a publicly trading beamoth like Google supporting them, does this mean Wikipedia has the possibility to go mainstream?
I wonder what google is going to get out of the arrangement. The link says that it doens't mean Wikipedia will have to put ads on their site. It's always possible Google's just trying to do something nice ...but I'm a bit skeptical.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
I would actually not mind Google ads on the bottom of Wikipedia pages if they're relevant. Let's say I'm reading about some scientific shit on there, and google suggests a few books on the bottom of the page. I migh just as well go ahead and buy them.
I've always viewed Wikipedia as one of the greatest achievements of humanity. Google is now my new favorite company for supporting this great endeavor.
Currently, Wikipedia is relying on charitable donations in order to get its funding... but why don't they just add the Google AdSense code into their pages?
Even their own Advertising on Wikipedia policy page admits ads are going to happen someday. Wouldn't this be the best way for them to go?
I can't help but wonder if this could backfire on wikipedia tho... suppose somewhere down the line they're heavily dependent on google's help.. and google disagrees with some content on it (read: investors aren't happy with content), there's a possibility of censorship or removal of content?
I know people are gonna fly off the handle at me for even suggesting google could ever do anything so wrong, but you never know... especially once the stock market becomes involved.
You're nothing; like me.
I really like Wikipedia and hope it gets more atention with time, but there's just something wrong with this deal. I think the question to ask ourselves is what does Google get from this. Bandwidth is expensive, especially on such a high load site as Wikipedia so I'm taking this with care.
I bet $10 there _will_ be Google ads on wikipedia if the deal goes down. Google giving bandwidth for free doesn't sound right from the marketing perspective, even for Google.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is something bigger behind this. Will there be gPedia in the next months? This could go along with Googles web/dictionary search and the recently announced maps.
Live and see.
Particularly as it is Google's mission to "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," it is especially striking that they acknowledge any wiki type ability to do so, presumably with enough sophistication that Google does not want to duplicate and/or surpass the wiki. Google is paying yet another compliment to concepts which are theoretically aligned with OSS. Heads way up!
BG
... it appears that Google does good. The only bad thing I can think of is their Google Groups 2 which should be sent into outer space and nuked.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Yahoo has started offering better services (e.g. the Yahoo toolbar for firefox)
What does it have that Firefox doesn't already have? You can access your preferences remotely? Big fucking deal!
Nah, Yahoo is still on the shit list.
"just so people like them" isn't some sort of abstract thing -- there are marketing advantages to being perceived as the Good Guys, and in fact there are accounting methods you can use to charge off expenses to "good will."
Nonetheless, I don't really think Google's doing this as part of some sort of "make us look better" effort -- I suspect it's far more likely that someone like Page or Brin just went "that'd be a good thing to do, and we've got a surplus anyway."
Dear Google,
;) - without heavy-handed corporate meddling. I hope you'll just let it purr along with minimal intervention and let it make you money. Better Google than MS, I say. And if it's really just a charity gesture, well, a big hellyeah and mucho goodwill to you all.
Could you guys be any cooler? Hey, I know I'm a geeky Google fanboy, you make me look smart at my job every day. I'm not pretending otherwise, let's get that straight. It's hard not to like a friend like that. And I know you've had PR issues with employee bloggers, but on balance you guys do more "good things" than just about any other Big Evil Internet Corporation around. Granted, the Gates Foundation gives a lot of money to worthy causes, but their patron takes our money and freedom with the other hand. Long term you probably want to make a buck off Wikipedia, and you're getting your foot in the door now. They ARE one of the best resources around, and it fits your strategy of being the answer to just about any question.
But strangely, I trust you guys not to screw it up, unlike some others (Micro*cough*) I can think of. I think you're crazy enough to let Wikipedia run under it's own editorial control - if you can call it that
I would strongly advise Wikipedia to refuse any nondisclosure agreements, and carefully read the fine print on other agreements. The libraries that thought it was so cool to get their books indexed signed nondisclosure agreements. This could be embarrassing at some point down the line....
"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." --Eric Schmidt, speaking to analysts yesterday, as quoted in the New York Times today
It may be possible we will no longer have a Yahoo option when searching Wikipedia (at the moment you hit search and a google-search option appears along with a yahoo search option. In the future the yahoo one may dissapear).
Wikipedia is a decent resource for information on Quantum Mechanics or other scientific information, but as far as political and historical information, forget it. Actually, the mainstream press even wrote about this during the 2004 US election. People should face up to it - there needs to be more than one wiki page out there for controversial people like Joseph Stalin, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and whatnot. The idea that there can be one supposedly "neutral" page has not worked out in practice. If you are of a conservative bent, I suggest a wiki like Wikinfo, if you are more left wing, I suggest somewhere like Infoshop's Open Wiki.
I find the Wikipedia's cabal commissar role over such things disturbing, and this sort of thing makes me feel even more so. Democratic Underground is testing a wiki, and perhaps Free Republic will follow. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
I can't help but wonder if this could backfire on wikipedia tho... suppose somewhere down the line they're heavily dependent on google's help.. and google disagrees with some content on it (read: investors aren't happy with content), there's a possibility of censorship or removal of content?
It's not like google has bought control of Wikipedia. If wiki accepts google's gift, that's nice. If google tries to get pushy later, wiki rejects the gift and reverts back to their old hosting solution.
I don't really see a problem here. Though I'm surprised google didn't just ask to include wiki article summaries in their results directly, and then offer bandwidth help as a way to help wiki make it happen.
Basically say, "We'd like to include wiki summaries in google search results, and if you'd like to let us do this but your current bandwidth can't support it, then we'll gladly assist you with bandwidth".
$8.95/mo web hosting
Does anyone share the growing feeling of concern and unease that I have about Google?
I thought the days of single online providers (Compuserve) was over but now it seems like Google wants to be the entire internet. They 'own' web searching (and therefore in the current state of affairs the web itself), they 'own' image searching and Usenet. Instead of loging onto the 'net it's becoming increasingly the case that you boot up Google instead.
Wikipedia looks like it could become the next major online success (and Google's actions kinda endorse this prediction) but instead of being happy with this state of affairs I'm wondering how long it will be before I only have one page in my 'sites to check daily' folder: Google.
Of course if you take a Capitalist kind of viewpoint this all looks very good for Google: it's taking over *because* it's so good. It's success is justifed - well done Google - no problem here.
My problem is that I see a rather nasty monopoly at the end of all this. If it is Google's intention to expand into every online nook it will not be a good thing for the internet as a whole. In fact a single critical set of servers seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what was intended. Aside from the already massive over-reliance on Google for both business and personal use, the ever increasing tempation for them to abuse their position as the gatekeepers of information in general and the damage done to the internet design philosphy as a whole, my major concern would be governmental interference*: let's face it, governments want control of people and Google's servers already give a quite stunning amount of insight into what is going through our collective heads. Even if you believe that Google (the company) is incorruptible, a single centre of such power would be viewed with great envy by a shit load of people who are.
Remember that feeling when the 'net was still young - you had it because there was no single dominant hierarchy in control. Already that feeling is fading fast - don't let it disappear altogether. The associative information held on Google is already too bloody dangerous to be kept a secret. Open it up guys - then I'll believe how much you care.
* There is a theory that this has already happened!
You should check out the Internet Bookmobile and any interview with Brewster Kahle. That's some awesome stuff that, if you think PG is important, you might be really into.
Famous last words, I know, but Wikipedia really does need the help. Even ignoring any ./-ing, their response time is degrading. If Google wants to help, more power to them, says I.
Google is now linking to answers.com for defining terms. Answers.com uses Wikipedia as part of it's search results. The bandwidth for answers.com is going up and therefore Wikipedia's bandwidth is likely to go up. Google is just trying to protect it's investment and get some cool points along the way.
Devise, Repair, Solve, Build
A more prosaic but nevertheless significant benefit: Google will probably index new Wikipedia articles immediately. Right now it can take many months for this to happen.
Two random examples of articles which haven't been found by Google yet:
Wikipedia article, Google search result (nil)
Wikipedia article, Google search result (nil)
regards, HaeB (admin on de.wikipedia)
Wikipedia is the top (or near top) search result for an incrasing number of search terms in Google. The site can't handle all that traffic, so lots of people end up having to click on the "cached" link after waiting a few seconds and seeing an error message.
This is simply a way of making it official. Google won't be using any more bandwidth or RAM than its cache of Wikipedia already needs, but itwill save users a few seconds and some frustration.
Google put your mouth where your money is:
give cash and let Wikipedia chose where they get the bandwidth from. That way there is no pulling the plugs if editorial conflicts occur. No profit means no profit.
Simple as possible but no simpler!
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
This is exactly what I want to see: two of the best (and free!) internet services available working together! Google is by far the best internet search engine (for images, news, newsgroups, random web sites, etc.) and also has the best set of language and map tools, among other things. And WikiPedia -- what else can be said? -- it's simply one of the best ideas ever put to action.
I wonder... What if Google and WikiPedia kinda-sorta merge? Imagine the power of Google behind the biggest, baddest, and best encyclopedia ever created -- one freely available to anyone who wishes to browse it or also available on DVD (superversion!) or CD (lite version?). Hell, WikiPedia could do that on their own. Get someone to write program the querying and interface, burn a few prototype discs, find something that works, and ship it! Keep it simple! *ponders the idea*
With Wikipedia, will Google skip Answers.com and deal with the data source directly. as Answers.com is just an interface of many dictionaries and references.
You are right. We should be wary of what google has control of. Most of us (myself included) are still in awe of just about everything google does. Though Wikipedia does go along with their "cataloging of all the world's knowledge" goal, they are still a corporation, that will be controlled more and more by the bottom-line. Wikipedia and other public sites like it, should not be backed by a for-profit company.
Wikipedia also has entries on stuff like "All Your Base are Belong to us". If you use wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia you are an idiot. It has a nice nitch in pop culture though, if the listed info is wrong, then so what, you get a pop culture reference wrong.