Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Donating Bandwidth and Servers to Wikipedia

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the yes-have-some dept.

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."

8 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. One idea as to why Google is doing this.... by MBraynard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    so when you do a google search on a particular subject - you get an immediate link at the top to the related wiki entries.

    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?

  2. No ads required by melted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Why Not use AdSense? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why Not use AdSense? by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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?

      Did you intentionally read that incorrectly, or what?

      Advertising is not going to happen on Wikipedia. The last time it was half-heartedly entertained, the Spanish Wikipedia misinterpreted it as a definitive statement and forked.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  4. Re:It's awesome... by LilGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. A letter to Google by DiscoBobby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dear Google,
    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 ;) - 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.

  6. Re:It's awesome... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  7. Answers.com is the reason by vandalman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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