Comments on: Google and Wikipedia — Separated at Birth?

By: Google and Wikipedia. It’s All Good. | mr michael tan

Google and Wikipedia. It’s All Good. | mr michael tan — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:30:22 +0000

[...] Google donated $2 million to the Wikipedia Foundation. GigaOm reported the news, but also raised the question of what exactly Google gets out of [...]

By: Michael Lee

Michael Lee — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:23:12 +0000

In doing research, I sometimes click through all of the Google's search results listed on page one and even page two and beyond. Where Google lists a Wikipedia entry, I have found that the Wikipedia article usually provides good quality, readable content in comparison to the other links listed. Recently, I made a small donation to the Wikimedia Foundation to show my appreciation for their work and am glad Google has also chipped in keeping Wikipedia going.

By: Gromosso

Gromosso — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:37:11 +0000

Wiki is already a Brand Name in itself, so we search its library without Google's help on our URL. It may be difficult for the company(wikimedia) to raise money since they are functioning like a charity and I do not mind that Google is helping. What makes the writer,so it seems, think there is something nefarious going between the relationship? Logic, What would be the gain for Google? Contents. And for whom? So What? What would be the gain for Wiki? Cash to improve. Wiki does not display any ads from Google or any other sites. It would be wrong if we start seeing Google ads start showing on Wiki web site. The Advertisers will not lose much since wiki is not selling anything, thus no problems, so no compete. The only people who might lose are web publishers trying to organically influence and position themselves in the search engine. This article writer did not do any logical analysis before begin writing and posting and does not have any idea how Google Adwords or Adsense work. You are wasting server space. And, by the way, we are the beneficiary of such a great symbiosis.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:07:48 +0000

Whether this relationship is good or not totally depends upon how the users see it. If in general people find it easier to grab information just because Google has tied up with Wikipedia, good.

But it goes against Google's natural voting mechanism - that, good content will be voted by people (by linking towards it) and Google will have to read people's votes to decide what is good, rather than rely upon their own impression.

Anyway, hope all remains well.

By: les madras

les madras — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:45:56 +0000

agreed. the donation comes after Knol failed, credit to google for admitting as much. I think we will see a similar turnabout after Buzz flames out. Google will start working with FaceBook rather than fight them.

By: les madras

les madras — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:42:21 +0000

linking TO wikipedia does nothing for your pagerank

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:00:36 +0000

Yes, I think the darker suspicions about the symbiotic relationship are probably a little extreme -- it seems as thought the arrangement works well for both parties, and there's nothing wrong with that.

By: caroline

caroline — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:51:38 +0000

B.wikipedia is very amazing resourses and absolutly agree with you

By: Gil Reich

Gil Reich — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:20:07 +0000

I don't think that Google benefits from Wikipedia's lack of ads. Because there are no ads on Wikipedia more people click on the ads in the Google SERPs? I'd love to see data on that. I strongly suspect it's untrue. The sites competing with Wikipedia generally monetize primarily with Google AdSense, so I think favoring Wikipedia hurts Google's revenue on these queries. In fact I'd bet there were criticisms inside Google that the donation sabotaged Google by allowing Wikipedia to continue to operate ad-free. The symbiosis IMO is simply that Wikipedia results satisfy Google users, providing more traffic on which for Google to show ads.

By: Werner Egipsy Souza

Werner Egipsy Souza — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:12:59 +0000

It's great that they understand that they are partners in the internet eco-system.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:14:08 +0000

Sorry to disappoint you, Steven. Just taking note of what is out there when it comes to Google and Wikipedia's relationship, that's all. I think "yellow journalism" is a little harsh. But thanks for taking the time to comment.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:20:49 +0000

What this article fails to note is that Google employees often attempt to influence the content of Wikipedia articles so as to advantage the company or promote its agendas. See, for example, the biased Wikipedia entry on "Network Neutrality," which ranks high in a Google search on that term.

By: Wai Yip Tung

Wai Yip Tung — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:14:32 +0000

Nice observation of their symbiotic relationship. But perhaps there is a simpler way to look at this. Just like Sergey Brin has said, wikipedia is literally “one of the greatest triumphs of the internet”.

By: crisismaven

crisismaven — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:58:35 +0000

Well I normally use the Wikipedia links in my annotated economics blog as a first source for explanatory notes simply because the format is always the same across all articles and people probably know their way around Wikipedia already. Then in a second step only I take people to other sites as well when in depth explanations of an economic concept or an illustration or a "second opinion" is warranted. So, yes, like Tim says: it's organical I believe.

By: Pourquoi google vient de donner 2 millions de dollars à wikipedia

Pourquoi google vient de donner 2 millions de dollars à wikipedia — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:21:02 +0000

[...] Google and Wikipedia — Separated at Birth? – GigaOM [...]

By: Market Talk » Blog Archive » Links 2/18/2010

Market Talk » Blog Archive » Links 2/18/2010 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:21:44 +0000

[...] “cements a kind of symbiotic relationship” between the two companies, Mathew Ingram writes at GigaOm. “For better or worse, it sounds like Wikipedia and Google will be joined at the hip [...]