Slashdot Mirror
Google or Wikipedia - Which is Your First Stop?
dwarfking asks: "Over the last several months I have noticed that more and more often, when I am searching for information on the web, I find myself starting at Wikipedia instead of Google. It used to be that the first hit on many of my Google searches linked to Wikipedia articles, so I started going there first. I've found that except for searching for current events, by starting with Wikipedia I get a good explanation of the topic of interest and the pages generally have links to other good resources that are right on topic (without the need to scroll through dozens of hits). Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, do any of you think this could become a trend for the larger community? If so, then what could that potentially mean for Google?"
Although Wikipedia is certainly a top ranking search engine result for many subjects, it is certainly not an exhaustive resource. It's an encyclopedia. As such, I find that when I search google that sooner or later (usually 1 - 3 tries) I find keywords that give some sort of appropriate results. If I am searching for specific subjects that I know may be found in an encyclopedia, I start with google again and search "site:wikipedia.org somesubject" or even "wikipedia somesubject". The latter search is because many people will have an informative page on their own website with more/different information than wikipedia, but they will reference wikipedia for some of their text.
Good question, but personally I still always start with google. Unless I'm simply in wikipedia research mode, then I can sit for hours in front of the thing going from one article to the next...
Funnypics
If the Wikipedia entry is worthwhile (believe it or not, sometimes it isn't), it'll be listed first in your search. Best of both worlds.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
I usually start with google and make sure I have the right spelling, then the appropriate Wikipedia article is one of the first links, so I click on that.
But only because it's in the search bar, and I use Google for non-learning-about-this stuff. If I want to learn about something, I search for "wiki blah blah" and click on the Wikipedia entry that just happens to be the first result.
Note to self: Make a funny sig.
To me it's not really an either/or situation, plus Wikipedia can be very lacking in some areas, especially current events or information about more specialised fields.
I'd say Wikipedia and Google are safe from each other (though leaning more towards Wikipedia, since Google often sends you there anyway).
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Depends on what I'm searching for. If its something thats specialized then I start with Wikipedia. If its broad and general then I start with Google.
Although, I've got to admit, there's this extension for FireFox that embeds the Wikipedia entries into the Google search results page. I use it at work, and for the life of me I can't remember its name right now, but its awesome.
If I want deep-texture content on a particular subject (e.g., polynomial rings) I hit Wiki first. Boom. Instant content. Google will give links *to* the content...why take two steps?
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
So yeah... me too. :)
This is a moot point.
I'm being serious. Google is supposed to tell you where to find what you're looking for, like the catalog computer in a library that tells you exactly which shelf to go to, whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an indiviual book in the library. Comparing the two is IMHO completely pointless.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
I do both at once!
With a Firefox extension called Googlepedia, I "Google" happily, and it'll include (if found) a relevant Wikipedia page to the side of the search results.
tag this one vi.or.emacs :)
...when it seems appropriate. But more often than not it does.
I always use google for searching, but often I add wikipedia to my search query to get the wikipedia article. I find it faster than using the wikipedia search.
I still use Google for my initial searches. I have been noticing that the hits I get are becoming less relavant as time goes on. This is obviously because sponsored links are constantly bringing up irrelavant hits. I don't consider Wikipedia as a traditional search engine so its not going to be able to replace Google. Both still have their usefulness in different ways. Until I get fed up woth my current searching strategy, Google will be my first choice.
So Google is now turning to Slashdot for marketing research?! I can hear the stock price starting to slip into oblivion...
http://www.amusd.com/Googlepedia
For example, if I want to find information about "Maxwell's Equations" or "Plate Tectonics", I'd probably go to Wikipedia first, because I'm pretty sure I know what I want. Even if the Wikipedia entry itself doesn't contain the information I'm seeking, it probably has a link to someplace that does. On the other hand, if I'm looking for information about something less clearly defined, of less general interest, or subject to frequent change, like "Linux printer drivers" perhaps, then Google is the way to go. (To complete the idea of a spectrum of resources: if I wanted a driver for an HP printer, I'd obviously go directly to HP's site.)
I don't think your observation portends any great shift away from Google, since I suspect that most queries made by most people fall into the second category.
I switched to Ask.com for searches about six months ago. Their first results page generally contains:
First: either a WIkipedia link or a link to the "official" site, depending on what you searched for. Ask is good at identifying the nature of the search.
Second: about 10 relevant links, with no junk, no ad site, no sales sites.
The downside is that Ask's advertising links are rather obtrusive; they put them at the top and bottom of the page, with a subtly different background color.
My switch from Google was based on a combination of performance and politics: I don't really miss it.
I usually check Wikipedia first. Usually has whatever information I need, reviewed by hundreds (if not thousands) of people, and relevant links and references. But, I also always check the 'Talk Page' to see if any information is being disputed, or if there have been bouts of vandalism. Sometimes I'll try search Google for "wiki [subject]" to see if there's a wiki for that topic specifically, but often such specificity is not necessary - and if such a wiki exists it's usually referenced in the Wikipedia entry as well. If I see anything that appears out-of-order, or if my questions about the topic aren't answered fully, I always turn to Google.
So, while Wikipedia is my first stop, it's rarely my final stop.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
It completely depends on what I'm looking for. To quickly get the definition of a word, "define: foobar" in Firefox's search box is about as fast as you can get. If I'm looking for some application's project page, again Google. Generally, if I'm looking for some small piece of information, Google can be much faster than sifting through lengthy Wikipedia articles for one particular definition or link.
However, if I'm looking for information on a well-defined subject, or a short biography, Wikipedia works best. Sure, some of the information isn't completely accurate, but it's not like I'm using the information for anything mission critical. I think that it's important to keep in mind that Google is a search engine and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which serve two different purposes. Before Wikipedia, online encyclopedias weren't very well known, and so people generally used a search engine for both. Nowadays that seems to be changing - Wikipedia for a synopsis on a topic, Google to find a more authoritative source.
Wikipedia for a quick answer, but Google for the right answer!
I prefer to use google to look, and wikipedia as a minor reference. The reason is that wikipedia authors have this habit of deleting useful content in the name of "unencyclopedic", and "not notable" using alexa.
If it's not in wikipedia, then I assume that it was deleted for stupid reasons, and thus why I use google first.
When possible, I go straight to the source though.
If I just want to find out what something is and I've got a pretty good idea of what to search for, I go to Wikipedia.
But for pretty much everything else, I use google. Wikipedia is a great resource for finding out about specific things, but that's only a small percentage of what I need to find online. For example, at work a while back we were having power issues with a recently upgraded room (a computer lab, previously filled with laptops and now filled with desktops, plus there were more systems than before put in as well), so I had to go online and try to find out what the energy draw was on everything in that room. That's not something Wikipedia could have helped me with.
For things that I *need* to find out, it's almost invariably google I turn to because in most cases like that google suits my needs better than Wikipedia. For things I'm just curious about, I'd say it's probably split 50/50.
I usually just write to Ann Landers
Register the editry.
Googlepedia link
Google usually just ends up leading me to Wikipedia.
That said, Google wins with me because Google offers me the opportunity of finding forums (such as this) that cover topics instead of just the related Wikipedia article. If I've got a problem or question, I value the process of getting to the solution or answer just as much as I value the solution or answer itself.
Also, if you're looking at this question purely from a "which is a better homepage" standpoint, Google wins hands down for versatility.
Like most respondents I use each as the information is suited to it. I still haven't seen a nice and succinct description of the difference and I find it hard to articulate off the cuff.
5 s
h =%25s
Anyway, I changed my Firefox Location Bar keywords (Quicksearches) to make each easy:
name: Google Quicksearch
location: http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&num=50&q=%2
keyword: g
description: Type "g " in the address bar to perform a Google search
name:Wikipedia
location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?searc
keyword: w
description: Type "w " in the address bar to perform a Wikipedia lookup
Google is still the first place I go for most of my queries. However, I find myself going to Wikipedia first when I want an overview of a topic and I know I've got a good keyword to get to it. And often when I'm using Google, the first article I look at is the Wikipedia entry.
Where my usage has really changed is when my first choice of keywords for Google leads to too many wrong responses (too much verbiage about Paris Hilton when looking for hotels in Paris). When this happens I now often look for a Wikipedia article to scan for better keywords to feed to Google. This is a very slick way of quickly narrowing the scope of the search.
Google is incredible. Who would have guessed that searching with "30 mi + 10 km = ? leagues" would get an answer?
Mostly I start with Google. If I'm looking for information on a person, place, or event, it's generally Wikipedia (you know... anything one would look up in an encyclopedia).
But if the search is to determine whether something is true or not, I usually start at Snopes.
Do I win a special prize?
If I want some sort of traditional reference material, the first best stop for me is http://answers.com/.
If I'm looking for almost anything else, I go directly to http://google.com/.
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
For me, it depends on my comfort level on the subject matter. If I know nothing or very little about a subject, I tend to start at Wikipedia first, so that I can get a general overview on the subject. If I know a lot about the subject and just would like more details, typically I can get the information faster through a search engine of my choice (not necessarily Google... PubMed and other resources, too).
I also tend to take Wikipedia's entries with a grain of salt. It just tells me what a bunch of people on the Internet knows about the subject, and the question of whether it is right or wrong or laced with hidden agendas is up in the air. The discussion pages on Wikipedia tend to be useful, if there has been a good debate, but I always assume that some crazy nut with an agenda has been through and "sanitized" the article for his/her own tastes.
You can also phrase that as 30 miles plus 10 kilometers in leagues, if you'd like.
Oh, and ask it what the answer to life, the universe, and everything is
I've actaully learned to use the search function in Firefox, which instantly goes for Google searches.
Here's the thing though. When I want Wikipedia, I don't go to Wikipedia. Instead, I search for "topic wikipedia" which always results in Google content, plus direct links to the Wikipedia article. That way, I can tab-open the Wikipedia article and simultaneously browse Google.
Clever, huh?
Full Tilt
When I want to search, I use Google. Wikipedia is not a search engine.
If I want an encyclopedia article on a specific topic, I use Wikipedia.
If I want to search Wikipedia, I use Google (Wikipedia's search function sucks).
Interestingly, if I want to find out about a current event, I often find myself using Wikipedia, as it tends to provide an aggregate of many different news accounts. Google News works too, but one big problem with using Google News is you tend to get lots and lots of stories that are either identical or based on the same source (such as an AP report).
The problem with Google these days, is if you search for ANYTHING that can be purchased, almost all of the hit results will be for places selling that thing with a handful of actually relevent hits randomly stewn in between.
I was searching for data on "USB Mass Storage support in Windows 98" - That was a mistake; Pretty much ALL the hits were for the selling ofr USB Flash drives, with a couple of informational hits, which had nothing to do with Win98.
Google's search quality was extremely good when it first came out, esp. compared to its primary rivals at the time (Altavista/Yahoo), but as it's risen to the top, it's basically been hacked.
The search quality is now as bad as Yahoo and Altavista's used to be, when they were the premiere search engines in the old Modem-days.
IMHO, all sales-related hits should be shucked into Froogle; That alone would clear up the search results substantially.
If I want to know the cast of a movie, I use IMDB.
:D
If I want to see older versions of a web page, I use the wayback machine at archive.org
If I want a quick summary of a single subject, I use wikipedia
If I need to know the name of a song from a few lyrical fragments, I use google.
Google is a search engine for most of the web so if I HAD to limit myself to one starting place, it would be google. Or dogpile
-- Boycott Shell
The combination of google and wikipedia has sort of done what Netscape Open Directory was trying to do 10 years ago. Open Directory still exists, but it's kind of fallen by the wayside. In fact, their server doesn't even seem to be up right now, but you can still read the wikipedia article :-).
In any actual implementation of google's page rank algorithm, you need to start by seeding it with some set of pages, and then it can spread out from there. Theoretically it doesn't matter what seed you start with, as long as the web is one topologically connected piece. But in reality, it's going to converge a lot faster, and be more reliable, if you start with something that's a good seed, and IIRC open directory was one of the seeds they did originally start with. Regardless of how google actually implements the algorithm today, the stability and convergence of the page rank algorithm is probably aided a lot by having a "backbone" like Wikipedia in the structure of the web.
The problem with Open Directory, in my experience working on it, was that it wasn't fun. It was just kind of a boring task you had to take care of every week. They also had a very hierarchical system of editors, and some of the editors higher up in the chain tended to be pushy, impatient, and arrogant. Wikipedia has done a better job of focusing on fun, and making everybody feel equal, so they've succeeded in harnessing a lot more dogs to pull their sled.
However, link spam has become a big battleground on Wikipedia as well. On the most important articles, there tend to be plenty of people who are keeping an eye on the external links, and if someone adds an inappropriate one, they'll delete it right away. But on less significant articles, there tends to be a ton of link spam, which nobody ever deletes.
Find free books.
If I'm looking for something I know I want in Wikipedia, well, I just type "wikipedia dinosaurs" (or whatever) into the Google search box. First result usually takes me to the Wikipedia page I want.
--Jim (me)
Actually, now that I think of it, I use BringBackThePorn.com for most of my searches...
Since I don't use Google at all (I use search engines that don't fall prey to blackhat tactics as easy) and I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, I would have to say that Wikipedia is the one I go to first.
Google is still my first stop for many things, but for a LOT of queries I do, it's google with 'site:wikipedia.org' asT o_Know_About
part of the query. And more and more often I find myself typing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Subject_I_Want_
directly.
I would definitely say that my search habits are shifting in a gradual fashion, towards using wikipedia more and more. But Wikipedia
hasn't replaced Google, they kinda supplement each other.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Wikipedia for the win!
When looking for technical information, my experience has been that searches on Google will typically yield mailing list emails harvested by any number of websites. Similarly, Google Groups searches mostly yield usenet posts harvested by Google. To save myself the grief, I just subscribe to the mailing list (or newsgroup) in question and find the information myself. Faster, cleaner (regex searches) and easier. If I haven't yet subscribed to the mailing list in question, I'll just suck down as much history as I need from gmane, or simply browse through past posts directly on their server. I think the same can be said for a large portion of other types of searches (porn included). YMMV.
Wikipedia is a different animal, I think. The articles are extensively cross-referenced, so searching (past getting to the first article) is mostly peripheral.
FWIW, reading the content of mail archives (as well as usenet archives) is a delight using mutt. Similarly, using a text-based interface (lynx, elinks, w3m, etc) when reading through Wikipedia (and/or saving articles to disk) can also be ideal.
I've been using Clusty for the last 18 months. A meta-searchengine combined with a Wikipedia-search, the best of both worlds!
This sig is intentionally left blank
Try searching for paris -hilton...
Ta-Dah!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=paris+-hilton&sta rt=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
games journalism blog
I usually google for the wikipedia entry. ie, search strings like: wikipedia hamster sex
- barkholt
Exactly. Use Google to get to Wikipedia.
Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, [...] what could that potentially mean for Google?"
What it could mean for google is obvious but a more interesting question is: what could it mean for Wikipedia? What happens when the "search rankings" industry decides that being well-linked from Wikipedia is important too?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
If I want to know general information about a certain topic, I can look it up on wikipedia for an overview of info, but if I'm looking to learn how to do something specific, say how to solve a technical problem, then google is the only choice.
Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
Since I really dislike how the WikipediaSearch works (the one usable with FireFox), I just use google (FireFox) and type 'define:word' 90% it turns up something from wikipedia, which I will read (no need to go to wikipedia, it shows the definition there). And if I want something else I just type.... 'wikipedia somethingelse' It's a win-win, no?
http://naerey.switch-case.org
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/743/
http://www.customizegoogle.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CustomizeGoogle
I use it as well. It is WONDERFUL. (If you install it; check the options - TONS of hidden not-default-enabled options)
That won't get you all the hotels though - what about the Paris Hilton?
I tend to use Wikipedia for "what is/who is?" type questions, and google for "how do I?" type questions.
a world in progress...
DMOZ/ODP was betrayed from the top. First there was SKRenta's Topix link spammage. Then someone added "Gambling" to the front page itelf, and stuck gambling links on every subject that could conceivably be gambled on. Similarly, someone stuck GLBT (Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Tranny) links on every conceivable subject that concerned people, just in case someone might be GLBT. There was no way Google could emphasize this directory from its front page anymore just before they were about to do their IPO. No better way to scare off investors!
I'm sure you and the twelve other ask.com users like it very much.
Me, I use Excite!
bang on target on google
What I hate the most is attempting to search for free software for a particular task (not knowing the name of the free software in advance). The links are always spammed up with crappy $29.95 shareware programs instead of the high-quality free alternative that you know exists somewhere.
For example, try a Google search for "Palm dictionary". Adding things like "+free -buy -shareware" doesn't really help. In my case, I happened to know that WordNet was a good keyword to add to the search and eventually found this. But back in the day, before Google spam, that site would have been Google's first hit for "palm dictionary". My mom, never having heard of WordNet, was almost ready to buy a shareware dictionary since that was all she could find.
Firebug. It will make your jaw hit the floor.
So I end up using Google one way or another. I almost always end up with Wikipedia returning a search error and asking me if I wasnt to use Google to search for what I'm looking for.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Google is your shotgun, Wikipedia is your rifle.
I concur. However, I find Wiki's searching to be a little lame as compared to google, so I end up just doing a google search for what I want, and also stick "wiki" or "wikipedia" as a search term, too, and usually the first result is the wikipedia article. Works like a charm almost all of the time. (And sometimes, you end up stumbling across non-wikipedia but specialized wikis for the topic at hand, which isn't a bad thing :)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Er... I find Wikipedia's search to be pretty rubbish, so in my FireFox address bar I type "google wikipedia (searchquery)"
For some types of information, I go straight to Wikipedia, yes. For instance, the other day I got tired of seeing the word "bracken" in fantasy books and only knowing that it's a type of undergrowth, so I looked it up in Wikipedia. ("Oh, those. I always just called them big ferns.") It's a great one-stop-shop for that sort of thing. It's also fantastic for geography, especially historical geography of the sort you can't easily find on mapping services (e.g., if you want to know exactly where Phrygia was).
On the other hand, if I just want to find a certain website (e.g., let's say I want to try out the Flock web browser, or I can't remember the URI for Improv Everywhere), I would use Google for that. If I am getting a particular error message and want to know the cause of it (e.g., when I was trying to do a portupgrade a while back and couldn't get Gnome to recompile properly), I use Google. If I want to see what sorts of things people are saying about a certain topic, I use Google.
And there are other things I go to other sources for. If I want to know what spices to put in borsch, I would head straight for rec.food.recipes on Google groups. If I want a module that implements a certain file format or protocol, search.cpan.org will tell me what I want to know. If I want to get an acronym expanded, I use dictionary.com.
So basically it depends on what I want to know.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
My google searches usually start with "Noun Wikipedia" :)
moox. for a new generation.
Someone is probably busy constructing a Wiki about midget wheelchair porn as we speak, and it's all your fault.
I don't like Wikipedia's sarch so I go straight to Google and search Wikipedia.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'm a (part-time) magazine feature writer. My two most recent articles were about interactive tabletop displays in museums, and the history of cannabinoids.
For the museum article, Google was more help: There was no way to parse "interactive tabletop displays" in a way that Wikipedia would return a useful, comprehensive page. On the other hand, WP has a great page on "cannabinoids" that led to a lot of useful references.
Ultimately I used both, though. For instance, I used WP to understand some electronics technicalities for the museum article. And for the cannabinoids article, Google ultimately led me to great places that WP overlooked, such as this collection of antique cannabinoid-containing medicines.
Tom Geller
I think this is a very interesting topic and one that I have been thinking about over the last few months. I suspect that Google has identified Wikipedia as a key competitor for the following reason. Wikipedia has the advantage over Google in terms of convenience. When most people want to know about something they usually just want a basic collection of descriptive facts so they can form a general impression. Wikipedia is very good for this. With Google however they have to sort through a collection of search results and perhaps visit two or more sites before they get an answer. This lowers the convenience level several steps. Convenience is very often most important to the typical user.
I'm sure that Google would be monitoring the click-through rate to Wikipedia. For more data they might also be measuring the increase in people typing a search query and then adding the word 'wikipedia' after it to make sure that they get the wikipedia page coming up first in the results list. If the users are clued-up they can just submit the request by hitting 'I feel lucky' and go straight there.
More interestingly, when using Firefox users can have the search box set to wikipedia and can then very conveniently type the name of a person or country or a general concept into this box and go directly to the wikipedia page. Using this method no search site is used at all.
Google is still very useful when one knows how to search for things using particular strings of words or combinations of search terms but this is not something that most people are very proficient at. Wikipedia is a better lowest common denominator and I mean this not as an insult but rather as a compliment.
Often times it's both at the same time a Google search for "Wikipedia chi rho" turns up "Labarum", which is exactly what I was looking for on the website I wanted to find it on. Sure, Wikipedia turns up the same thing, for this topic, but Google will correct my spelling or guess at what I really meant, Wikipedia does not.
I am a self-admitted google fanboy. I use the personalized search, gmail, etc etc. No apologies from me on that. I think they are a great company and I use their products every day, for free. The ads are mostly relavant and non-intrusive. Maybe that makes me a Google apologist. With that in mind, try paris france hotels hilton.
;-)
That seemed to work pretty well. The whole first page (didn't look further) as all about the hotel, not the person.
I've found that if you know how to ask google what it is you want, you will almost always get it. It may not be your first choice in keywords, but key, it works fine for me. YMMV, however.
OTOH, I use google for pretty specific searches (i.e. very specific computer problems), while I will surf Wikipedia for broad topics. Sometimes I can spend hours and hours just playing wikipedia. They get more of my time the google does in that regard
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
What about it? Thousands of people sleep in the Paris Hilton every year!
Funnily enough if you could check my Google history, you would find that about quoter of all my requests in Google starts with word "wikipedia". And Google obediently fetches me relevant pages from wikipedia ;-)
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I've got search shortcuts set up for google, wikipedia, google image search, and imdb with Quicksilver on my mac. If I'm looking for information on a person or thing I'm unfamiliar with, I go to wikipedia. I go to google when I'm looking for a particular site (Belgium Dog Quarantine) or a lot of sites ("Getting things Done"). IMDB is pretty much only for TV and movies.
Using Quicksilver means I never have to relearn habits. Let's say "Ask.com" becomes better than google. I can just change the shortcut and now "goo foo" will bring up the relevant ask results. I really miss it on my windows box.
My father is a blogger.
My first stop is Google, with site:wikipedia.org in the search.
So much faster than Wikipedia's own search engine !
The only reason I use Google is when I can't spell what I'm trying to find on Wikipedia. The "did you mean?" search on Wikipedia sucks, but Google knows what I mean each and every time.
You're right; Google has been flooded with crap.
Give givemebackmygoogle.com a try. The site itself is nothing revolutionary since it uses existing Google search options, but it does give you a nice list of spamwords to filter out and include in your Firefox keyword search.
Wikipedia's internal search blows. When I'm curious about something, I type "wikipedia topic" into google, where topic can be pretty much anything. Then, even if "topic" isn't exactly what the title of the article is, I'll get some hits to start with. I almost never use Wikipedia's own search function. Google FTW.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Actually.. being the lazy soul I am, and since I have a personal start page on Google, I just go straight for that.
And then type in "Wikipedia Blah Blah" with my search term.
The Google index just seems a little more reliable in "guessing" the article I wanted, than the "please try and work out the exact article name" Wikis tend to employ.
I followed the link provided and I was stunned at what I found. Great tip, no matter how sarcastic anyone else might be, you've made one person truly happy today. All the search features I'd want, PLUS Wikipedia right there, plus in-browser preview....excellent!
The clusty cloud is a corny name, but the concept is great.
So say me all.
If it's something I just want to know a little about, or it's *technical* (particularly in hard sciences or math), or entertaining, I'll use Wikipedia.
When it comes to potentially contentious or vaguer concepts out of the reach of science, or when I suspect that the WP article will be deficient (I've learned how to guess), I'll use Google.
Increasingly though, many Wikipedia articles have an adequate list of recommended external links that are often as good or better than guessing what's good on Google's page one. Particularly when it comes to special interests that are likely to be popular (games, for example), because those pages attract fans who are highly knowledgeable. In such cases you might need to visit 50 Google offerings to find something remotely as worthy.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
well, i use google. i write "wikipedia world war 2" for example, and click on the first link. so easy
then again i also type "google" on the firefox search bar, and then click on the first result which takes me to the google homepage.
I don't use Google any more, I use Scroogle. I avoid being tracked as far as I can (I don't even use the preferred shopper card at my local supermarket, and I use cash whenever feasible.) I trust Wikipedia for information as far as I trust graffiti on the local wall. Encyclopaedia Britannica and the OED will always be my first choices for reference.
Get a developer key and search for both terms. :-)
Usually for me i use google to search something but in the top 5 searches wikipedia is there so i kinda use both.
I dunno dude, I just did your exact same search:
u pport+in+Windows+98&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozi lla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=active
... ::shock!:: useful. ::horror!::
http://www.google.com/search?q=USB+Mass+Storage+s
And got vastly different results than you testified to above.
In fact, most of the results were
When I want to know more about a wildly unfamiliar subject i do the search consisting of '[keyword] wiki', and usually get wikipedia articles at the top, closely followed with somewhat useful homepages of the same, further down the page.
87% of the time i just visit the first wikipedia entry to see if the article is any good.
Wikipedia is pretty okay on content, Google is still best on indexing. Can't see why I'd have to choose one or the other.
This would make a great poll and google would win :)
I use Google to search Wikipedia. I find the builit-in search functionality of Wikipedia to be very poor and using Google seems to get me better matches. Looking at the intent of your question I guess my answer would be Wikipedia.
However, it really depends. If I am looking for an howto article, especially about programming Google or Yahoo is it. If I want an overview of something that I know nothing about then Wikipedia is where I would go. If it is a movie or an actor/actoress, I would probably try IMDB before either of them. dict.org to look up meaning of words. Gamespot for some basic info on Games. I guess the geek in me wants to use the right tool for the right job.
It doesn't know everything... it doesn't know how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood
It doesn't know how much upchuck a woodchuck would upchuck if it drank a case of beer and rode the zipper either...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I go to Wikipedia for specific information on a topic (as it's as reliable as any other page I might find on the web, generally) and google/yahoo if I need to find a specific site.
I would have to go with Google. Wikipedia is the op-ed page of the internet. Just a bunch of cranky old farts who want the world to know they have two brain cells and a keyboard.
I never think of actually going to wikipedia first but it seems that the wikipedia entry for almost everything that I search for seems to be popping up first on google's list as time goes by.
Entered into Google:
the answer to life, the universe, and everything
And it responded, as it should:
the answer to life, the universe, and everything = 42
If you want to know what wikipedia thinks, you put "wikipedia" in the Google query.
Well, I use google to search wikipedia...and anything else. Love the wiki but I would take Google over it any day.
I just call the suicide hotline and ask.
maybe you should try using natural language...
"USB drive windows 98" returns 10 useful hits (only 2 of which are even remotely commercial).
The problem is, no one actually refers to usb drives as "mass Storage"
http://coolasfsck.blogspot.com/