Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.208.159.25

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

Using Wikipedia content is OK!

     
9:09 pm on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 17, 2004
posts:195
votes: 0


When you search Google, you can check the 'definition' of a word or term by clicking at a link [definition] in case of a single word, or on a link with the word itself in case of more than one word.

This links takes you from Google to www.answers.com. This site not only gives dictionary meanings of words, but also gives you articles on just about everything. There are to things to realize about this site (a site that Google itself is linking too, meaning it is an okay site):
1- The content of the articles are all 'stolen' from Wikipedia. (well, stolen is not the word to use, but I'm using it loosely here.)
2- The site has ads.

I've seen many scraper sites 'steal' ALL the wikipedia content in the same way, and put ads on it. I thought that was not something to really fuss about, as we're used to scraper sites (and used to vent our frustration out by talking about them). Yet what triggered me was finding an 'authority' site that Google itself is linking to in that way use the Wikipedia content (its full content!) and put ads on them!

Okay, let's assume it is 'legal' to grab the Wikipedia content, put it on your site, and also put ads on all the pages. Please answer this one for me: What is preventing me from registering for a new site tomorrow and doing just this (pulling off all the Wikipedia content, putting it on my new site and putting ads on them)?

Pleaaase answer this, as my mind is going crazy and I can't find a mental path out of this. Please put an end to my endless loop.

6:24 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 29, 2005
posts:44
votes: 0


I'm not sure if I understand how google is related to answers.com. I did a search for "define dogs" and answers.com was right after wikipedia. On further "define" searches it really isn't up there in the results that often. I thought the partership they have is based on people searching for definitions.
Also the fact that answers.com doesn't get punished more for duplicate content suggests a human reviewed the site and guaranteed no duplicate punishment. It seems they didn't do a whole lot of work for a whole lot of traffic. Also I noticed their revenues are only around $500,000 the last quarter. Seems really low to me, maybe because the main scyscaper isn't targeted. In summary I am jealous and forgot why I started writing this post.
1:28 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 17, 2004
posts:195
votes: 0


Search Google using any English words without using "define". You will find a link at the top right corner for such keywords you have used. Click on the link, you will be taken to answer.com

I hope by now you remember why you've started to write your post.

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32