Google is trying to kill Wikipedia
December 14, 2007
Not happy with a monopoly of the search engines, Google is now moving to own all the search results too.
Their latest announcement The Google Knol is a shameless and arrogant attempt to outdo Wikipedia.
They say: “The challenge posed to us by Larry, Sergey and Eric was to find a way to help people share their knowledge. This is our main goal.”
Really? Did you not think that Wikipedia is doing a perfectly good job of that already?
What that statement should say is:
“Larry and Sergey decided they wanted their own wikipedia – we send too much traffic to that site – lets make one of our own and try to replace their one. We control the serps so it should be no problem.”
This idea STINKS to high heaven. It will lead to more pollution of serps and is not in any way an original idea. It’s a total rip off.
Please let us know your feelings by commenting below.
Google need to realise they can’t do everything, can’t control everything, can’t monetise everything and should leave well established sites like Wikipedia alone. They do what they do well.
Grow up Google – every step you take down this path only wins you enemies.
Well, they can try you know.
Grow up – Google is a commercial entity, and has every right to try this. It’s an open marketplace, and Wikipedia doesn’t have any kind of patent on the free web encyclopedia format, or on knowledge in general.
If it’s any consolation, I think that wikipedia have a MASSIVE headstart and command lots of brand loyalty, and that Google are wasting their money (much as eBay did with their acquisition of Skype).
I agree with Shark Sandwich. But i also think that knol is actually referring to a different group of people. People, who put authorship forward. Wikipedia attracts individuals who put information forward.
I don’t say that knol will provide bad pieces of information, but I’m wondering if it can encourage collaboration the way wikipedia has.
The big question that arises, I believe, is: which platform can provide better quality of information? A platform based on authorities and experts or a platform based on the collective intelligence of the crowd?
I mentioned your website on mine:
http://wiredamp.com/?p=24
John Battelle agrees, it seems.
http://battellemedia.com/archives/004151.php
Shark Sandwich perfectly illustrates the difference between knol and Wikipedia: “Google is a commercial entity.” So, if you think that commercial interests never interfere with the pursuit/collection of true information, or truth in general, then knol is for you. If you understand that commercial interest has corrupted everything in the Western world, then stick with the truly democratic Wikipedia. Knol = dictatorial ad-laden garbage, Wikipedia = democratic ad-free community. Google has already monopolized the organization of content on the interweb, it should not be allowed to produce content as well. Has anyone else enjoyed watching their stock fall lately? How can we rally to stop knol???
Knol is a response to About.com, not Wikipedia.
Please yes Google, kill Wikipedia. For those who haven’t ever tried to participate in Wikipedia, here is the sociology of it in a nutshell.
People work hard to edit an article. A long term denizen of Wikipedia- a “wikignome” – comes along, tears it down or deletes it, citing something like “non notable subject matter”.
A battle ensues between the parties. The long term denizens, the “gnomes” use their superior knowledge of the processes involved in “adjudication of conflict” in wikipedia – and their long standing friendships with judges, or “admins” -to have their way , mostly without real discussion.
End of article. If the editor persists, it’s end of editor or “banning”. This has happened with such frequency to what later embarrassingly turned out to be real world experts, that scholars and people of serious intent stopped taking Wikipedia seriously years ago. It generally cannot be cited in journals articles or even children’s schoolwork.
Essentially, Wikipedia is run like a third world dictatorship where the well connected – those who have been there a long time- support each other for advancement to “admin” status ( judges in disputes – real power in Wikipedia ) a status which is achieved by making a certain number of edits and then being voted on (at which time chits are called in).
Over time these people have formed a junta which always support each other and will not let outsiders edit or contribute to any serious degree.
The rules, a depressing number of which are concerned with “dispute resolution”, are well-meaning and a processes of sorts in place. But this is enforced by none other than the admins, who generally will not contradict each other. The result is, the “rules” are perverted at every turn against new editors or would-be participants.
So groups of like-minded control freaks with nothing better to do with their time (and apparently no social life- some editors have 50,000 and more edits) spend 3 and 4 hours a day upping their edit counts, which advances them to admin, and bullying anyone they decide they don’t like because of the content (not the quality) of the article, or their personality, political orientation , or – the greatest offense of all, disagreeing with one of them. The hapless but sincere editor who accidentally runs up against a well connected long-timer )a gnome) will wonder where the angry mob and hanging judge suddenly appeared from.
Wikipedia is the purest expression of what is created when there is no centralized control whatsoever. It’s populated by an assortment of alliance forming, purpose perverting, rule-twisting, power seeking and just plain defective personalities you’re likely to find on the web.
Serious contributers are of course repelled by this atmosphere which they find unfathomable, and quickly leave.
The flaw here is giving the power to delete someone else’s work to just anyone. What that attracts is people who crave power and especially the power to frustrate others. These Wikipedians, as they call themselves, learned some time ago that if they support each other, they could control the place as they “advance towards admin”. When a conflcit arises, they can count on their alliances to rendered the required “judgment”.
As an encyclopedia, it’s a pathetic failure bristling with inaccuracies, mind-boggling misrepresentations and horrendous untruths. As a sociological experiment, it’s an object lesson in what not to do.
Google learned that basic lesson- let people of goodwill contribute and thank them graciously by not deleting their work, at least. And that’s how we can all just get along.
Get over it, Google owns us all now.
If I said one “thank you” to ‘daes shanna’, it wouldn’t be enough!
Thank YOU!
I always felt that things in Wikipedia were more deeper than they seem. Ever since I was a kid, I was shocked to see the ‘edit’ button, which promted me to click it. That was my first encounter.
When I grew up a little more, I realized how usefull a web encyclopedia could be. I tried editing a serious edit, and I get a big “NO”.
Nowadays I am wrking on a group of articles, yet each of my edit is reverted.
I honestly think the “edit” button is a little stupid…
Check this out:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:212.138.47.15
Thanks once again.
P.S. to ‘daes shanna’: Can I post your comment on my blog. It was amazing! Your name looks Muslim, and so does your comment!
I noticed that this is not the first time you mention this topic. Why have you decided to touch it again?
Wat Da Hell Google Can’t Kill Wikipedia Cause Wiki Is His Nickname And I Also Got His Back