searching.. for a meaning
I can't speak for them, but If I were google, the rise of wikipedia would concern me quite a bit. It has popped out of nowhere to become a free [and comercial-free!!] way of reaching plenty of knowledge on the web... and some of us might just start looking there for things.
As the ads-driven content keeps struggle to deal with spam.. quite a bit of it coming in the for of new blogs, the crystal-pyramid that wikipedia has become keeps growing, and provides something that is hard for google to match, the MEANING of the words or expression that people are looking for.
One can claim that they don't necessarily compete. The "search for a meaning" that you get in wikipedia also ranks quite a few times on the top search links in a google query... but I wonder how many times it is just better to jump right into wikipedia. An example: If you're going to New York city and want to know "what is so special about this New York?".., a google search will land you in a page with plenty of sponsored links to hotels, direct links to restaurant guides, and quite a list of subcategories (dining guides, lodging guides, suggested itineraries, etc)... and the chances of learning about New York end up buried down the list.
I found myself looking for information about the MoMA (New York's museum of modern Art) earlier this week, and the wikipedia article taught me more than moma's own site. That was a weird feeling, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on many other topics, because wikipedia's point-of-view is more likely way less self-serving that any entity (commercial or non-commercial) is tempted to be.
Jimbo Wales seems to be making quite a few merit for a big recognition from mankind.. something like the Nobel Prize for Peace.
As the ads-driven content keeps struggle to deal with spam.. quite a bit of it coming in the for of new blogs, the crystal-pyramid that wikipedia has become keeps growing, and provides something that is hard for google to match, the MEANING of the words or expression that people are looking for.
One can claim that they don't necessarily compete. The "search for a meaning" that you get in wikipedia also ranks quite a few times on the top search links in a google query... but I wonder how many times it is just better to jump right into wikipedia. An example: If you're going to New York city and want to know "what is so special about this New York?".., a google search will land you in a page with plenty of sponsored links to hotels, direct links to restaurant guides, and quite a list of subcategories (dining guides, lodging guides, suggested itineraries, etc)... and the chances of learning about New York end up buried down the list.
I found myself looking for information about the MoMA (New York's museum of modern Art) earlier this week, and the wikipedia article taught me more than moma's own site. That was a weird feeling, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on many other topics, because wikipedia's point-of-view is more likely way less self-serving that any entity (commercial or non-commercial) is tempted to be.
Jimbo Wales seems to be making quite a few merit for a big recognition from mankind.. something like the Nobel Prize for Peace.
posted by dave at 1:26 PM
0 comments
