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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Wikipedia for a quick answer, but Google for the right answer!
I usually just write to Ann Landers
Register the editry.
Googlepedia link
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?
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.
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
Actually, now that I think of it, I use BringBackThePorn.com for most of my searches...
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
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?
Someone is probably busy constructing a Wiki about midget wheelchair porn as we speak, and it's all your fault.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
What about it? Thousands of people sleep in the Paris Hilton every year!