Slashdot Mirror
Wikia Search Engine to be Launched on January 7th
cagnol writes "The Washington Post reports that Jimmy Wales, the founder of online encyclopedia Wikipedia, has announced the launch of a new open-source search engine, Wikia Search, on January 7th, 2008. The project will allow the community to help rank search results, in a model close to Wikipedia. However the company is a for-profit organization. This new search is supposed to challenge Google and Yahoo."
I guess that's their response to Google's Knol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol) Pity to see things heat up between the 'good guys'.
So basically...they're asking for people to abuse the ranking system. To patrol something like this would require a company with resources like Google, and most likely the reason Google doesn't have such functionality. Just my two cents.
The Washington Post reports that Jimmy Wales, the founder of online encyclopedia Wikipedia, has announced the launch of a new open-source search engine, Wikia Search, on January 7th, 2008.
Not only that, Wikipedia is reporting that its marketshare has tripled in the last six months.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The idea is to challenge the established players by offering a search service that is more transparent to end users, meaning they can see how search results are arrived at. Wales has described Yahoo and Google as opaque services that don't explain how results are arrived at.
Personally, I don't care how search engines rank the websites they return as long as what is returned is proper, relevant and useful.
I predict significantly more vandalism and self promotion with this project than with Wikipedia. That said, I still think it's a good idea. But the article had a very low content:words ratio, so I don't really have a good idea as to how it will be implemented.
Since this project would seem to depend on the participation and good-will of users in order to work, my guess is that a nonprofit version will follow shortly afterwards, paralleling the open-source model. I also predict that without the benefit of a massive Microsoft-esque head start, the for-profit version will be put of business in short order.
A-Bomb
Someone loading the dice on what I get back from a search. At least with the current crop, I can more or less figure what they're doing. With a dynamic, anything goes approach, I seriously doubt I'll be using it much.
... they do a better job than what they did with WikiPedia.
Please note that this web-crawled item has been flagged for deletion due to violation of the following:
notability: this item is not notable
references/authority: this item is missing authoritative references
Sincerely,
I-wasn't-cool-enough-for-hall-monitor-so-I-delete-Wiki-articles-instead
I have a feeling the general user who would edit a wikipedia article or something like Wikisearch will be much more tech savvy and promote more tech oriented results for keywords than those that google will provide. This can be a good thing or bad thing depending on what you are looking for. Google personalized search is probably the superior method since it uses the users own searches(without external input) to determine the rankings of the search results.
It would have been nice to see them fix Wikipedia's own search engine, which IMO is absolute garbage. I have a better chance of being linked to what I'm looking for by using a general search engine.
This is simply his response to Google starting what amounts to competition for wikpedia. I'm sure google is having quite the laugh from it - one wonders how much of the donations for wikpedia are being used towards this thing.
If you think wikpedia gets vandalized, wait until there's money involved. Wikpedia for all it's trappings, doesn't directly influence spam. But a search engine... IF, and this is a big IF, this thing becomes mainstream, having the code public will make it very easy for the bot herders to control it. The idea is simply flawed. Google is currently dealing with bot herders attempting to manipulate it's page ranks - while the idea of it being open source sounds great (well, ok it doesn't to me - I don't have the love affair with open source that most slashdotters do - I've never bought into the security myth that there's GOOD coders out there with so much free time on their hands that they are walking OTHER peoples code. I don't like doing that when I'm PAID to do it. Not too mention there just aren't that many good coders out there....but I digress) it's simply going to work right into the hands of the malware crowd - especially now that it's more organized crime than it is vandalism.
EK
by our tags, that we have a few Wikipedian Protestors in our midsts.
All right! Googlebombing is time consuming and an organizational nightmare. This will simplify everything. Karl Rove
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Search today is nothing but "top lists" for your keywords. If we look at the major search engines (Google, yahoo, MSN, Ask.com) what is search today anyways? It is the top results of web's averages searches for a given query. It has little to do with you as the individual, it isn't in a natural language (something we forgot exist), and it is old. We have recently released Assista.com which is a different kind of search (I define it as "inquisitive search"). While we don't think it is the only solution out there, it is different, fresh, unique, and for the advance learner, it gives an unfair advantage on learning, education.
Wikia, while may not be perfect, is a noble idea. When Jimmy Wales asked why he is getting into search he replied "Because it sounds fun" (or something like that). The bottom line is Search is just beginning and we have a long way to go from perfection. When you look back at Google/Yahoo/MSN 20 years from now you will not believe e have settled for that.
Cheers
Sahar Sarid
http://www.assista.com/
http://www.conceptualist.com/ (blog)
I guess it will return all of the left wing Bush haters sites first.
Honestly, it's crap. It's like using infoseek back in 1995!
"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,190,000 for wikia. (0.04 seconds)"
;-)
Someone had to do it
Ask me about repetitive DNA
But building a search engine is a little ambitious, even for the co-founder of Wikipedia. Maybe he should start off small, like searching one website. I even have the perfect one to start off with: its search feature is so bad that if your search is off by one letter, you have a good chance of not finding what you're looking for. Maybe you've heard of it.
Exactly. I have *always* used google to find wikipedia articles. You can't beat google with a 'site:' prefix. As a matter of fact, I have the following firefox bookmark stashed under the "wik" keyword:
http://www.google.ca/search?complete=1&q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%25s
Which means of course, that simply typing "wik integer" into my address bar provides me with a list of wikipedia articles relating to integers. No need (or desire) for wikipedia's own search.
the top hundred results will be to porn sites.
What a crappy search engine. When I search for something, I want the top 100 results to be 100 different porn sites! I can find two porn sites without help.
paintball
Shouldn't they work on getting wikipedia's search to work half way decently before they try to compete with Google?
Don't get me wrong, I like wikipedia, but their search on the site is next to worthless.
We know how the search engine will work, if anyone has ever used Wikipedia's search function, you're almost destined not to find what you're looking for, especially if you're one letter off. ;]
But this sounds a lot like, "Y'all write the code, I'll take the credit, do the magazine interviews and get all of the money. But you guys can have some fun with it too, debugging and doing localization and that kind of stuff."
Call it the Marc Fleury path to fame and fortune.
The thought that Jimmy Wales, cofounder of Wikipedia could have an open site without abuse is laughable. You operate under the sham of an open community, yet exclude those outside a very narrow political agenda. Your a fraud, using open source principals as a smokescreen that presents your personal world-view set as fact to the world. I don't buy what your selling, and I'm calling your bluff. The sad thing is that this will probably make you a fair amount of money if more people don't start to see through you.
But then the wonderful thing about leading revisionist history is you can substitute your own revisions for reality....
If it's an "open source" search engine and anyone can go and read the source of how it operates, everyone will know the secret to rigging their pages so that they show up in the top results. Google is extremely secretive of their algorithms and that's why there's relatively few rigged crap links.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
There's a site that hosts Wikis called Wikia as well. (Yes, it's owned by Jimmy Wales, as well).
So what's going to happen to those Wikis now that Wikia is turning from a MediaWiki host site to a search site?
There have only been two fundamental revenue models of content for 25 years now - EndUser and Advertiser. The ISP's went through the throes of the switch from PerHour to FlatRate in the 1990's, and the RIAA is struggling with it now.
I don't know anyone who would "pay to search" casual queries. There are some professional databases which do operate on this principle for high powered content.
From the RIAA threads we learn people don't want to pay as endusers for their content. The post above asks about the advertiser model.
The absolutely tough part about Free Open Source models is that it takes a MUCH longer cycle for the benefits to wind around the social benefit cycle. The monthly rent/mortgage whips around much sooner. The first person to absolutely nail this problem will be the mogul of the 2010 decade.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
How is this different from Mahalo? The media wiki powered search engine that has been up for almost a year?
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Wikia has been something of a dud. What Wikia really does is monetize fancruft. Their big wikis are for Star [Trek|Wars|Gate|Craft], Everquest, Marvel comics, Yu-Gi-Oh, and similar subjects. They're the resting place for fan articles thrown out of Wikipedia.
Wikia's search engine, based on the user demographic they have now, is going to have great coverage of furry fan fiction.
There's already a good manually-updated search engine. It's called Open Directory. It's quite useful as a data source for answering the question "what is this web site about"? It tends to run months behind changes to the web, since it's manually updated. While not many people query DMOZ manually, it's used by Yahoo, Google, etc. to get some basic information about a web site.
As an example of how great Wikia search is going to be, Wales suggested searching for "Tampa hotels". The major search engines return too many bottom-feeder reseller and directory sites for searches like that. As I point out occasionally, we've already solved that problem over at SiteTruth, which looks for business legitimacy. Type in "Tampa hotels" there and watch it push the marginal sites to the bottom of the search results. We have that one handled.
Wikipedia works because people are willing to do substantial work for free for a non-profit organization. That doesn't work for a commercial business. You can get people to write about themselves (Myspace, Facebook, etc.) but beyond that, "crowdsourcing" doesn't go very far.
that if this succeeds, and can race past MSN in terms of popularity, it will show to the world, that MS's gripe about Google truly was worthless. Of course, MS will use that to tell our congressmen that the glass is half empty, not half full.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Have you been influenced any by dmoz?
As trollish as parent is perhaps, he is unfortunately speaking a trollish truth.
Speaking explicitly as a reader of slashdot, with all the group-think biases a site like this introduces, wikipedia is floundering in a mire of their own arrogance, and the dissatisfaction with this needs to be heard.
sheeple? your lisp is cute.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Example - you don't recognize our site as having a valid business address because it's embedded in a table - not best practice HTML, granted, but hardly obscure AND you only recognise certification from the BBB - which is hardly a sterling endoresement of business legitimacy.
Sorry to go on the attack, but I don't think you can fairly claim to have solved this problem at any level that this crowd would accept as meaningful. The web is not headquartered in Podunk and it doesn't meet for lunch at the Rotary Club.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!
Wikipedia receives most of its traffic from its articles appearing in Google's search results, Wikipedia being relevant content, and Google being the top search engine.
How is Wikipedia to draw traffic to their search engine? Obviously not via Google, as search engines are content free on their own. Integrating it with Wikipedia? But again, Wikipedia is the end target, not a start point, so how could this work.
I don't think Wikipedia has the strategy or money for this to reach critical mass and show its potential, but it'll be interesting as an experiment.
Finally a new search engine to compete against Google. Looking forward to it. This kind of explain why google came up with Knols. listen_to_slashdot
and it's pretty useful. I don't know why everyone is complaining in the comments so far. This user-participates-in-ranking magic is not exactly news, and anyone who has studied or worked in information retrieval knows this. With a large enough number of benign participants, it should work.
And since people are bringing up Google as competition: Google Search has an estimated retrieval accuracy* of around 10%. Not very hard to beat, except that the Internet is a rather large document set. Have you ever browsed to the 50th page of results on Google? Good. Don't.
The problem is that to give decent results an engine needs time, and people are just not prepared to wait. That's why general purpose search engines on the web try to give you the best answer on the top hit. Results deteriorate a little (next 10) then improve again (next 20) then go completely nuts as you proceed. This fits the business plan, and almost everyone is happy. Google may have superb query processing and a decent Index system, but retrieval can be made to improve a lot if, say, there is an option to wait a little and get something better. Maybe Wikia can do this. If the users who get the most "insightful" (ergo time consuming) results get their feedback weighed more heavily than the point-and-click folks, this project can be very interesting.
*accuracy is a complicated metric that involves efficiency (fraction of retrieved that is relevant) and recall (fraction of relevant that is retrieved).
I foresee someone hacking this system to return goatse as the #1 result for every search made.
Is content going to ever be totally free? It will be if people understand the inherent rewards of an open society. Information's negligible cost of duplication is the revolutionary model is the thing that is shattering the old models (c.f. http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/EconomyOfIdeas.html). Wikipedia is already doing that. As much as I'm a critic of Jimmy Wales, citizendium, etc. (with their NPOV lunacy), the system he's helped build is saving people's lives and improving quality of life in ways the old world just doesn't understand yet.
Personally, I'm hopeful that as long as we still have the Right to Read (c.f. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html), we're on the path to freedom and salvation. A corporation who makes up a new "model" to take advantage of content producers isn't going to take hold anymore. There's just not a point anymore. The price of content is already quite low for common knowledge. Even if the arbiters of knowledge try to keep it from common knowledge, we can paraphrase it. The greatest risk to real productive use of our knowledge still remains Patents. Information may finally be free, but the freedom to tinker is not.
... on this Slashdot story has suddenly taken on a new (old?) tone. Lots of people are commenting in ways that I'd almost describe as karma whoring; but, certainly the intentions behind the attempts are well above the now-usual banter of the typical /. story comments. It's almost as though this story has attracted a whole population of people who don't usually post, have gripes against Jimbo, or are trying to be his satellites to help insulate the inevitable Slashdot comment archive against any negative PR.
Too funny, and so obvious.
Compare the test query 'nobel prizes 1987' on Google, Wikipedia's original search and this new search engine, for example... they take more navigation time and user effort to get to the results.
Wikipedia is falling apart because no one agrees on anything. Any additions are being deleted because they don't contain PC(pol.correct) language.
Why would the search website work?
I doubt it works.
Having an open algorithm isn't enough. If the community is contributing to a database, and relying on that database, then the database has to be open, distributed, and resilient, along with the algorithms, protocols, etc. Otherwise, it won't belong to the community that created it, but to some company that can act as gatekeeper to our own data, or even coerce us into using it.
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of online encyclopedia Wikipedia
FTFY.
Only about 10% of Wikipedia hits come from Google which is Wikipedia's single largest external referrer other than a null referer.
A great new searchengine.... and no url given....
Promoting stuff isn't their primary business I guess.
Hope they don't do ads....
Doesn't Google do this already? AIUI the PageRank system looks at how a web site is linked to and connected to others. If a site is good an relevant, it will be related to other sites through links, blog posts etc, i.e. the net community in general. Perhaps that's even better than a group of self-appointed editors, and of course it's not the only factor Google uses.
Because of Google's anti-spam techniques this method is very hard to game. Better still, the defences are automatic. On Wikipedia, a lot of vandalism goes unnoticed for a long time because it's all mostly down to human oversight, with only basic anti-vandalism bots.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If they let me remove results from my personal ranking profile.... maybe with an option to show me how many total hits and a way to retrieve those alternate results if I need them.... then I'll be using it.
What I want is to get rid of things outside my daily context. I work in web development so when I do a search for "CSS 3 column hack" I don't want to get results related to some sport team abbreviated CSS where they have a coach whose a hack but likes to use a 3 column lineup.... stretching a but but you get the idea. More simply put I'd like to filter out results for anything that also ranks high in a variety of categories that have nothing to do with my daily tasks (fishing, fashion, first graders, fanboys... ) and it's not enough to let me use a -fishing in my search...
Also can I please remove a website from the results listing... ie: there are often high ranking sites that I've already bookmarked and read daily... I don't need to see them in my 'search' results, if i need to search them I'll use their own search or use website:www.domain.com 'keywords' (given that I'm using google for this one).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
"the system he's helped build is saving people's lives and improving quality of life in ways the old world just doesn't understand yet."
The old world was based on personal greed and individualism, even ideology cannot trump efficiency and human community, it's nice to know that inside there is a helper/altruistic tendency to human beings.
Great answer, too.
I was a little fuzzy with my set theory. "A certain segment of people" doesn't want to pay as an enduser. Those are the people who originated the new battlefront. If you pay the classical way, great for you, great for them, everyone goes home to dinner.
Content is becoming "free as in beer" to the enduser for the next phase, financed by ads.
someone can figure out how I can earn back the check I just dropped off to my landlord today.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Will it also search Bomis?
Funny to read this today, after I spent a couple of hours yesterday searching Google for something that doesn't exist -- a Plucker type app for the iPod Classic. What struck me was just how badly Google performed. Any search containing the word "iPod" seems to return pages upon pages of blog entries about the (long since released) iPhone. What one tends to find with a Google search are a lot of loud, content-light blog entries, popping with ads, with short dashed-off articles broken across several pages. "Relevance" in Google seems to have the most to do with activity -- posts per day per site, repeated introductory blurbs on every page, modestly-trafficed forums devoid of meaningful discussion. Google does a pretty decent job with common searches, reasonably well with obscure searches, but very badly with the rest -- the middle of the long tail.
Google rose to prominence by being the best of a pretty weak set of players. It's still only the least bad solution, and there are a lot of things it does poorly. In classic AltaVista, you could type a few words of a song in quotes and find the title and lyrics. Type a long quoted string into Google, and you're likely to come up with nothing.
If Wikia manages to best Google in any type of search I'll applaud it. Search choices beyond Google and Trying to Be Google would be most welcome.
I agree with your agreement. If I'm not sure how to spell a word, I don't go to a dictionary, online or otherwise I go to Google, type it in and get the correct spelling from the "Did you mean" line at the top of the results.
See http://www.google.com/experimental/a840e102.html
Grandparent post is pushing a pro-wiki POV and does not conform to our NPOV principles. Further, our goal is to be encyclopedic, not to ensure that we contain accurate content. As such, primary sources, even verifiable ones, are not allowed. Thus, you need to give sources if you even want to say that the sky is blue--anything else would invite original research.
Further, your account appears to be a sock-puppet because you display an over-familiarity with Wikipedia rules and markup despite relatively few edits here. We are placing a temporary block on your IP while we investigate. Later, we'll hold a secret vote on whether or not to ban you, choosing the "consensus" by discarding all the opinions we disagree with by arbitrarily enforcing random technicalities to discard dissenting votes while ignoring the very same technicalities for consensus votes.
If you would like to appeal this decision, come to our talk page or email us so we can laugh at you.
Have a nice day!
[[citation needed]]
I believe that the "notability" drive on Wikipedia is directly related to the business model of Wikia. Subjects are found to be "not notable" and are driven off by Wikipedia admins. These subjects are then left to host on Wikia--a for-profit, ad-supported company owned by Jimmy.
Note that there is no technical reason these wikis need to be hosted on Wikia instead of Wikipedia. And there should be no cultural reason--the idea behind a wiki is that anyone can add or edit.
However there is a business reason--these subjects often revolve around commercial products who have corporate owners with ad budgets. And they have rabid dedicated fan bases who drive a lot page (and ad) views.
And that has lead directly to a cultural shift that has mutated the concept behind Wikipedia--from a community, ground-up project...to a governed, top-down product. The purpose of the admins is now to LIMIT the size of Wikipedia, and push as much new content as possible to Wikia instead. Very clever.
In addition, doesn't the coincidence of the recent "nofollow" decision strike anyone else? Wikipedia pages have very high page-ranks, and their external links should be one of the greatest collections of topic-contextual links on the Web. They greatly enhance the value of Google's search engine...or at least they would if they were not "nofollow"ed.
Link spam on Wikipedia has always been handled the same way as any other kind of abuse--through vigilant citizen patrolling. That was not the reason for the "nofollow". The reason is that it take Wikipedia out of Google's equations for improving their search quality. However, nothing will prevent it from serving as a resource for the development of the Wikia search engine. The move was for competitive advantage.
The unfortunate thing about the wikipedia angle is that there are far too many individuals who go in and edit or remove relevant info, calling it "linkspam" or making some kind of unfounded COI claim. Free Open-Source Software is what it is why it is. Moore's Law means that the cost of data storage is going down. The cost of managing? Not going down quite as much, especially as more people contribute, increasing the complexity factor. Managing a data warehouse is not the same as managing an actual physical warehouse of consumer goods when it comes to square feet!
Regardless whether storing or managing -- if the hosting and managing aspect is becoming too much to bear on donations alone, a funding mechanism for sustenance would eventually need to be obtained. The persons who are haughty about removing outside (offsite) links from wikipedia should realize that when the private sectors are required to compete with each other in the same ways that they are expected and required to compete with one another in the public sector, efficiency is usually obtained. Increases in usefulness and timeliness of information are also obtained. Time and energy of people is not wasted just because it can be via a dollar amount, as often happens with lengthy legal battles. And legal battles almost always involve the Principle-Agent Problem. >> nonexistant wikipedia link at this time.
Nope. This, however: 2005 DOJ Case is a somewhat related technical topic which could probably use some more discussion. Seems a bit obvious how the National Association of Realtors colludes to exploit people in many of the same ways Microsoft does! :)
Anyway. Some of the individuals removing information or links are not even originating from the correct language tree for the countries where they are. Check the "edit history" of various pages in the /en/wikipedia/ tree and notice how many edits are done by people from non-US IPs. It's not that there's anything wrong with sorting the disambiguation of acronyms, but it's a definite problem, for example, in search technology. Many seem to have a language barrier issue with understanding what exactly FOSS is about. English is one of the most technically accurate languages, imho; that's why the 'net started here. I've personally linked to a lot of information on wikipedia articles and have contributed in one manner or another to a lot of F/OSS projects, but having the project I'm managing removed and called "linkspam" when I'm not selling anything nor requesting any donations is just not cool.
If we're talking about publicly-ranked search results, the results may expose more than we're comfortable with.
/., I find all +5 content to be generally insightful, interesting, funny, etc. At least it seems so to me. Either I'm new here, or we've all seen Life of Brian. Whether that's utopia or not is another question altogether.
Wikipedia content is either right or wrong. It's not meant to be subjective, hence it can be patrolled and corrected. Now they want to apply it to subjective content; I don't see that making sense, albeit at first glance. User A is a technocrat who loves Monty Python. Hardly an isolated case. Use B is a 15yr old who likes whatever he/she likes this week. There's no "patrolling" this, except to address systematic abuse.
The concept is fine for slashdot, or any "closed" system, where the users generally share a common set of expectations. At
Expand this out to the general internet user, and the result will, of course, reflect the general focus of human society. That will be interesting, to say the least, though I'll bet $5 that anything entertainment- and religion-based will always be at the top of the results. Is that what people want? Ipso facto perhaps, but sure as hell not I.
Let's keep in mind that (no offence to anyone specific) ~80% of Americans believe in God, less than 50% subscribe to Darwin, ~30% believe in "UFOs, witches and astrology" (if you can believe this poll that is). Of course, smart people believe weird things too.
Add to this, that 81% of those who have seen two or more "Police Academy" movies believe that O.J. is innocent, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I had used many search search engines before Google was around and then started using Google when they became the most usable. I'd be happy to use a better search engine. The best way to win people over is to teach them to do better searches. I have seen hundreds of people use a search engine with one and two word searches and get millions of Google results. Then they need to read through pages of results. If they don't read pages of results, they get Google's top rated propaganda and not necessarily what they were looking for. Google rankings aren't bad, if you are specific, but Google's search results lost depth a while ago and I'm not sure when it happened. I should be able to find anything with the right search string, but I can't. I can get 50 Million pages, but when I drill down, I can't get 10 that I know exist and Google has indexed. There may be to many adword conflicts, so they don't show any ads or results :-)
Your post looks like a defense of the private sector, the private sector is equally as incompetent as the public sector, (i.e. the whole sub prime crisis, and that was the banks for christ sakes). So no, private != superior, in fact if anything the more time goes on the more human behaviour is showing the mythology of the free market to be non existent. Because markets always bow to interests in the end, so they can never be truly 'free', and the government is merely an extension of private industry to keep the hordes from revolting and the police and army are their to enforce the big economic powers private interests.
Unfortunately the private sector is in fact worse in some regards because of primitive propertarian ideals and human greed and territoriality giving way to abject mediocracy in the pursuit of personal gain. In fact history has shown private and public simply oscillate between periods of excellence and mediocrity. I'm not apt for 'universal truths' since time by it's very nature changes truth (i.e. we have technology and cultural values much different then other societies, and those societies thought 'theres was the best society / economic structure / etc, etc'. The cost of managing information is not going down *yet*, as soon as AI get's there the cost of managing information will go down by orders of magnitude. It may not be within our lifetimes but it will eventually happen, not to mention the biggest cost of managing information is in paying the meat people to manage it.
A silicon AI doesn't need to get paid.
It's easier to find things on Wikipedia with Google than it is with the Wikipedia search... Good luck, Jimmy Wales. You're going to need it.