Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo! Search Providing Support to Wikipedia

Posted by Zonk on from the yahoogle dept.

Jamesday writes "Yahoo! Search will also be providing support for Wikipedia. Discussions, started at the same time as the aforementioned Google announcement, have been ongoing with both Yahoo! and Google but only the Google news leaked. It's now more clear why Wikipedia said there was no need to worry about undue influence from any single sponsor."

5 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Yahoo! is turning around... by k3v1n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It certainly seems like Yahoo! is turning back around, hot on Google's heals. With Yahoo 360, Flickr, and their developer tools, it seems like they are becoming relevant (again.)

  2. Bad trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The shortcuts will show contextually relevant abstracts of Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ articles in response to user queries."

    Meaning that people will search for something, be present with an encyclopedia (which isn't) by the search engine, then take what it says to be correct as if it had been fact-checked. There are just too many errors in Wikipedia for it be turning up when students search for things on the internet.

    1. Re:Bad trend by mrbooze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In what way is Wikipedia "Peer-reviewed"? *Anyone* can update an entry, right? Like, I could decide to submit my own interpretations on string theory, despite my knowing nothing about string theory and having no credentials on that subject at all.

      That's not at all like a real peer-reviewed journal, where the review and comment process is much more rigorous.

      Sure, if I spew some blatantly false blather, someone will eventually catch it and fix it. But how long will the wrong information be out there for some poor student to see and think is true vetted "peer-reviewed" data?

      My wife teaches various aspects of anthropology and works with some genuine peer-reviewed academic journals. She'd never accept Wikipedia as a real reference in a student paper. (She in fact rants about it frequently for how common errors are.) Neither would she accept someguyswebsite.com either, of course. Many credible sources also have their own websites, and then there's always the horrible prospect of actually going into a library for research.

      Wikipedia has its uses, I still refer to it myself sometimes when I'm just looking something up out of curiosity, but I treat everything I read there with a grain of salt.

      This article by one of Wikipedia's original co-founders I think very precisely sums up some of the challenges Wikipedia faces to be considered a true, academic-level information source on par with "real" peer-reviews journals and encyclopedias.

      http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

  3. Tinfoil Hat time! by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Funny

    They ARE working together! See!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. Wikipedia Editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Editor which supports Wikipedia Syntax.
    * Wikipedia templates (Ctrl+SPACE)
    * HTML preview rendering
    * export wizard for generating HTML files
    * open a Wikipedia link with right mouse click and selecting "Open Wiki link"
    * HTML pages can be configured with velocity templates
    * update from a Wikipedia page (right mouse click in the editor)
    * HTTP GET Queries from selected editor texts (right mouse click in the editor)

    Changes: * a new context-menu item in the editor for creating all files for a given category [1] * a first Export Wizard to convert Wikipedia articles into a single PDF file. [2]

    [1] http://www.plog4u.org/index.php/Using_Eclipse_Wiki pedia_Editor:Download_a_Wikipedia_Article%23Grabbi ng_a_Category

    [2] http://www.plog4u.org/index.php/Using_Eclipse_Wiki pedia_Editor:Export_to_PDF_File"



    http://www.eclipse-plugins.info/eclipse/plugin_det ails.jsp?id=913