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 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.
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.
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
"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
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).
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!
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