| 7:47 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Let's hope not for Wiki sake. I think it would destroy it in the same sense youtube has been destroyed. With all that human editing I can see 'defamation' and 'slander' type lawyers making the trip to the courthouse everyday :-/
| 8:06 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google then moves from organizing and presenting the world's information, according to Google's view of what is or isn't not relevant, to having an oversight role in the creation and editing of the world's "authoritative" (according to Google) information? Seems like they'd have their bases covered with such a move. ;0/
Not saying it's bad or good to have such an information loop in place, given the flood of pseudo-information (See FactCheck.org). This would move Google further into the media world. I can see GWiki taking on a much larger role in 'presenting the news', in real time, with many contributors, including a tie in to YouTube videos of news events, etc. Citizen journalism and news, evolved. (Who needs Fox? But, wait, up next . . . )
Interesting times. Next up: YouTube begets Googel News Division. Google Soap Opera Division. Google Reality Series Divison. Google Online Continuing Education Division.
[edited by: Webwork at 8:46 pm (utc) on Feb. 14, 2007]
| 8:12 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If anyone would a content site would. Maybe Yahoo or a site that could monetize that type of traffic. Google has never been in the content space and has not seemed to want to join it.
It's a tough business to play with.
| 8:57 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Of course, if Yahoo acquired Wikipedia, maybe the Wiki results wouldn't monopolize Google's SERPs as much. ;-)
| 9:03 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think the real reason wiki is showing in the top of the results is
content constantly being added
and more unique content
The founder of wiki has been thinking of spinning off his own search engine, so may be google wants to purchase it and have a non compete agreement signed.
| 9:16 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
there is no need for an aquisition . it's free ....
all they can maybe buy is the logo and the domain.
| 9:51 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Why not just give them a spacial link kind of like
"did you mean?" call it "See Wikipedia"
It seems that for many keywords in many niches, Wikipedia owns many of the top spots.
I cant say Google is going to buy them, but I could beleive that they give them a high ranking because they do not sell anything and its driven by user contribution. Sometimes I think google is subtly telling searchers to do your homework and research the keyword from wikipedia and find out before you visit the other sites.
The sad part is that Wikipedia is still getting gamed even after the nofollws were started. I know that a lot of marketers use Wikipedia to promote and persuade. While i like wikipedia for educational things, as for money keywords many of times you are getting a biased opinion and thats what it is turning in to.
| 12:14 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|While i like wikipedia for educational things, as for money keywords many of times you are getting a biased opinion and thats what it is turning in to. |
Communism/anarchy isn't working ... didn't then, doesn't now.
| 12:37 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I hope they get dmoz first before they think about Wiki. Google considered dmoz a leading authority long before Wiki. The external links from Wiki are already compromising the site as a new form of spam. Wiki, based on its SERPs for so many keywords, could become a Google cashcow with Adwords.
The thing with Wiki is Google would be in an awkward situation if one of its competitors bought it. I mean, it gives all this authority to Wiki, but what if Yahoo or MSN owned it and monetized it? They'd be sending all this traffic and money to their coffers.
Although there are legal issues and risks with Wiki, they are nothing compared to those at YouTube. Most content is not copyrighted and most visitors to Wiki are not looking for copyrighted work. I recall only one incident wrt Wiki abuse in the last two years or so.
| 2:09 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wiki doesn't align with Google strategically. Google likes machines to do the work - Wiki relies on editors and people.
| 2:23 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Wiki doesn't align with Google strategically. Google likes machines to do the work - Wiki relies on editors and people."
Thats a good point. It's been said time and time again. However, with the recent buzz about personalized search it may make sense.
| 2:29 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|but what if Yahoo or MSN owned it and monetized it? |
That makes an acquistion a MUST! for elementary strategic reasons.
| 2:51 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Buying Wikipedia is just as nonsensical as somebody buying out "linux", or somebody buying "the internet", or buying out "smtp"
Wikipedia is released under the GNU Free Documentation license.
| 3:05 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Wikipedia is released under the GNU Free Documentation license. |
Almost anything can be purchased if the price is right and certain conditions are met. ;)
| 3:25 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
But Wikimedia Inc is a non-profit charitable organisation. Buying out Wikimedia is as nonsensical as buying out the Salvation Army or Greenpeace.
About the only thing that has any potential monetary value would be the domain name and the wiki trademark, since the content of wikipedia is entirely free anyway.
What I mean is - is anyone going to "buy out" the Free Software Foundation, or Mozilla. Or what about somebody "buying out" Firefox?
I'm not sure what the U.S. laws are , but I'm pretty sure you can't buy out a non-profit charity.
| 3:33 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
not sure if i'm allowed to post a link, but this is important to the arguments in this thread - its from the Wikimedia Foundation. This should hopefully end all speculation on Wikipedia being "bought out":
And I quote:
We are not a commercial product. We provide free knowledge (… or content… or educational content…) for everyone. Our goal is not to make money. Our purpose is to help humanity be more informed, knowledgeable. Not only are we confused with commercial companies sometimes, but big charitable organizations do not recognize us as a charity, which greatly limit the support we might get from them. I would consider as a goal for year 2007, to change this.
| 5:35 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|do not recognize us as a charity, which greatly limit the support we might get from them. I would consider as a goal for year 2007 |
I am not sure if it is a charity to destroy people's jobs. The content was there before on the internet. It's free in your local library.
The whole thing is a sensible as offering free sand. Now everyone needs to clone wikipedia to draw even and add their own content. I've seen about 20 sites that closed their own content and replaced it WP with the comment it would be the consequent thing to do. And it probably is.
Wikipedia and Google are the source of this increasing content devaluation ..
And even worse after they let that site rise, the Wikimedia Foundation wants to offer a free serach engine... and Google still lists them... sawing away on the branch they sit on ...
So free content and free search engine.. and there are still webmasters that support this socialist adventure.. silly..
WP is on a mission to destroy most people's work here .. some kind of charity. Maybe some people will wake finally up when we have Wikitravel Wikishop whatever.
| 6:19 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|WP is on a mission to destroy most people's work here |
Nah. Their just doing what we all strive to do which is to be on top. It isn't their fault that Google likes them so much. Hate the game not the players :-)
| 6:23 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Buying wikipedia would be in line with google's mission - both to organize the world's info, but even more so to sell ads.
I think its possible they would want to buy.
But Jimbo would never sell.
| 8:34 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Their just doing what we all strive to do which is to be on top. It isn't their fault that Google likes them so much. Hate the game not the players :-) |
it's irrelevant how you name the game the result is the same. ;)
| 8:35 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But Jimbo would never sell. |
I guess Jimbo gets enough money from consulting speeches and so on ...