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."
1. Gmail
2. Gbrowser
3. Ghosting
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
It is now called Gwikipedia.
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.
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)
"According to this post, Slashdot plans to help Wikipedia by using up bandwidth and adding to their increasing load."
...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.
It usually is a 10 minute process to login to Wikipedia and call up an edit page. Not to mention that this might help with all of the Slashdottings Wikipedia's servers have to survive;)
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
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
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?
don't have to finish that sentence.
Yeah, linking it on /. is a great way to help out their "increasing bandwidth" problem
I stole this
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.
I guess Google changed its moto from "Do no evil!" to "Help the needy!"
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.
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 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
"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
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.
First get in good with all of us geeks and internet junkies. Then, once you cant imagine life without google (search, groups, gmail, maps, gpedia? ), they take it all hostage! When you go to google.com you will be greeted with "donate now" link (through some paypal-like service that google will start and most likely do better than paypal) and if one billion is not reached by next month in donations the sites go down for a month. and this happens every month... man, they're good...
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.
If they ever do pr0n I've got a great name for them.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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
"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 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
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.
More info
Jimbo Wales meets with Sergey Brin and Larry Page
Jimbo Wales, Chair, Founder and life member of the Wikimedia Foundation met with Larry Brin, Co-Founder & President, Products of Google, and Sergey Brin, Co-Founder & President, Technology of Google in Stanford today to discuss hardware and bandwidth donations from Google to the foundation. According to Anthere, Vice-Chair, Contributing User Representative of the Wikimedia Foundation,
"It is currently proceeding, but details are not entirely worked out. We had a first proposal for which we gave feedback last week. Today, in Standford, Jimbo met with Sergei Brin and Larry Page, who were extremely enthousiastic about the whole project. The board has a meeting planned early march to try to finalize this a little bit more. Ant" [1]
Maveric149, one of the lead developers and most prolific of article contributers continued:
"I don't remember the specifics (ask Jimbo for those), but Google has at least tentatively agreed to give us access to a certain number of dual zeon servers at one or more of their data centers and with unlimited bandwidth. I've been told that there are no strings attached (meaning they don't expect us to do anything for then, such as having GoogleAds).- mav [2]
In short, this is wonderful news. I have helped with our grant applications in the past and, in addition to taking a lot of work, there is barely ever enough money to run what will shortly become one of the top 100 websites on the internet, and the only thing limiting Wikipedia's growth is hardware.
Tomorrow there will be a meeting in IRC to discuss our future grant applications; anyone wanting to hear more should keep glued to the Grants page and stop by http://irc.freenode.net/Wikipedia at 4PM UTC on Feb 10 (Sunday)
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
"Why do they allow anyone to edit that content? I could click edit and save changes to that page."
Umm I believe that is the point. Anyone can edit the articles so it is basically open source encyclopedia style. It has the strengths and weaknesses as any other CVS style set up.
Creative Demolition
This is simply a strategic move to compete with Microsoft and it's inclusion of Encarta in MSN Search...
Google is getting into robotic war machine business?
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!
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!
Stock price does not reflect whether or not a business is successful, or even going to be successful. It's not even a good indicator as to the health of a business.
I suggest you educate yourself on how business works before spouting off eccentric bullshit.
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".
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.
With the definitions recently changing from dictionary.com to answers.com, Google has begun using Wikipedia in its searches. If you look up a definition, the resulting answers.com page has a subsection from Wikipedia.
Google could be feeling bad about burning up the resources of a free organization so they are giving back by way of servers and bandwidth.
The question is, are the ads on answers.com Google AdSense?
Urgo: "I want to live. I want to experience the universe and I want to eat pie!"
Jack: "Who doesn't??"
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
Current hosts (and existing offers):
There is a cluster of squids hosted for free by Lost Oasis in Paris, serving around 2TB/month. There is a serious hosting offer from a group in the Netherlands that is being pursued (this must wait on various legal details; they want to have a formal agreement with a Dutch chapter, which must first be formed, etc).
AFAIK, the only serious offers from universities have been for backup hosting in the case of / in preparation for an emergency.
SJ on en:
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.
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.
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*
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.
No plans for Google ads. We do send search to either Google or Yahoo now when the database servers are under an uncomfortable amount of load. I'm usually the person making that decision and I decide solely based on balancing server load and reduced service.
Instead of static caches we're using Squid caches which get updated automatically when the content changes. We're looking to place more of these in other places which use significant amounts of bandwidth or are far from Florida in response time terms.
We're aware of the risk of excessive dependence on one donor and are looking to avoid it. We're entirely happy to talk with other companies who want to share in being seen to be helping something obviously good, limited only by the suitability of the offers for our needs. I don't know what the Wikimedia Foundation board would say but personally I'm entirely happy to accept hosting from Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL or any other significant player. In my personal opinion, neutral means just that - including neutral toward all companies in the business.
If any competitor is concerned about Google getting undue benefit or prominence, the solution is simple enough: talk with us as well.
We have offers of various sorts in Europe (though more, particularly from major carriers with excellent peering arrangements, would be very welcome) and the US. We don't yet have a substantial offer in Asia and that's a major hole I'd personally love to see filled. We're very popular in Japan and a location with good peering in Japan would be good for service there.
By this time next year I'd like to see 2-6 major remote sites with database slaves and apache web servers, capable of taking over as master if there's a failure in Florida, plus 10-20+ remote Squid caching sites. A massive amount of work (and donations) required to get that done.
We've already been blocked from China ourselves on several occasions. I've little doubt that it'll happen again and in other places as well from time to time.
It's absolutely certain that we have some unknown, uncorrected copyright infringement, offensive content, politically incorrect items for various parts of the world and assorted other things some or many people find undesirable. If the chairman of the board or president of the country is making headlines worldwide for some indiscretion, expect it to be in the article. Nobody who is unduly concerned about such things should consider offering hosting - we can't guarantee the absence of such content, just that we will try to be neutral.
We're not only interested in hosting and bandwidth. I'm particularly interested in high performance disk drives or systems, high capacity RAM modules (database servers like RAM but 32GB of ECC costs $11,000...) or whole high power database servers. To give some idea, I'm thinking in terms of three quad Opterons with 32GB of RAM and 12-16 15,000 RPM SCSI drives to keep up with demand for just the English language encyclopedia project over the next 6-9 months.
No part of this post should be taken as representing the official views of the Wikimedia Foundation or any members of its board. It is, of course, blatant soliciting for donations, as you'd expect from the guy who does much of the capacity planning...:)