All Posts Tagged Tag: ‘wikipedia’
You may have heard already that Wikipedia hit a milestone recently with its two-millionth English article, which was, ironically, about a Spanish TV show called El Hormiguero. As interesting as that is, it’s also interesting to note that George W. Bush is officially more popular than Jesus.
Trust – reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
How confident are you that a particular Wikipedia page has reliable information? How sure are you in the ability of all the people who may have edited that page? Thanks to Luca de Alfaro and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Cruz you may soon be able to know which parts of a given Wikipedia page you can and can’t trust.
More bizarre news from Overstock. Now, Wikipedia has apparently banned them from editing on their site. This comes after a long history of alleged blantant advertising and other nefarious actions by Overstock on Wikipedia.
I’m not up on Dutch royalty. I’m not up on any royalty cuz I’m an Uh-mer-kin and we don’t dig on that jazz, right? Well, some still do, or else the Today Show wouldn’t have anything to talk about on slow news days. Anyway, this about Wikipedia more than Dutch royalty, so let’s roll with it.
A flame war has ensued between the operators of PervertedJustice.com, online arm of Dateline NBC’s "To Catch A Predator," and Wikipedia. When Wikipedia users clicked on the Perverted Justice link included with articles about pedophilia, they were redirected to a welcome page naming Wikipedia as a "corporate sex offender."
Hotswap says that “seeing is believing,” and, to a point, I agree; Hotswap lets people post videos to sell their used cars, which is far better than a picture or 15-word newspaper blurb. Now, with the support of Steve Wozniak, the site may be in a good position to take off.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales would like you to help him build the revenue for his new “for profit” venture Wikia. Wikia has acquired the distributed crawler Grub from LookSmart and Wales plans to make it open source. He’d like to invite the community to line his coffers.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to Jakob Nielsen for a series I’m doing for Search Engine Land about what the search results page will look like in 2010. Jakob is called a "controversial guru of Web design" in Wikipedia (Jakob gets his own shots in at Wikipedia in this interview) because of his strongly held views on the use of graphics and flash in web design.
Two months ago, Warner Music Group (WMG) filed suit against Imeem for copyright infringement. Now the suit has been dropped, and – get this – the two companies have announced a strategic partnership through which “WMG’s world-class catalog of popular audio and video content will be made available . . . for interactive, on-demand streaming on imeem’s free, ad-supported service.”
All of the major presidential candidates have an online presence, but their current online strategies are not reaching 42 percent of voters who use the Internet for information about politics, according to a study from iCrossing "How America Searches: Election 2008."
This is a stereotype, but at least it’s a positive one: the Germans are an efficient and precise people. Now, for less of a stereotype and more of a fact: Wikipedia can be far from precise. You may be surprised to learn, then, that the German government is going to give resources to the German version of the site.
Earlier today, a feature on Google’s new Experimental Search site drew a comparison between Australian politician Kevin Rudd and Hitler. The primary engine also caught Wikipedia at a bad time – a search for “George Washington” showed a result claiming our first president had, um, “defecated” on a stick.
Did you hear that Flea (of Red Hot Chili Peppers fame) is going to teach schoolchildren music? Well, Warner Music Group (which represents the Chili Peppers) is going to teach Imeem a lesson – it’s suing the social networking site for copyright infringement.
The Encyclopedia of Life, which intends “to document all 1.8 million named species of animals, plants, and other forms of life on Earth,” was launched today. And as fascinating as this story is from any standpoint, it may also lend some perspective on issues raised by sites like Wikipedia.
Shopping sites like Shopping.com, Yahoo! Shopping, BizRate, and NextTag already dominate Google’s organic search results and paid listings.
As horrific as the circumstances at Virginia Tech were, as a journalist it was fascinating to watch the information about the shootings filter out through the students and faculty at the college, by way cellphones and webcams, blogs and Facebook accounts, Flickr photos and LiveJournal updates. The Wikipedia page was updated minute by minute (the page of edits makes for interesting reading). Another example of “crowdsourcing” the news.
Because Wikipedia entries routinely show up in the top 5 search engine results at Google, some black hat SEO’s (and a few clueless beginners) realized the value of a link from the online encyclopedia and began link spamming blatantly. So recently Wikipedia posted the "nofollow" tag to all outbound links, purportedly to stop SEO Spam by reducing the value of those outbound links.
Call it the Minority Report effect on the advertising world, as the Association of Network Advertisers (ANA) has seized upon "Integrated Marketing Communications" as the top concern of some of the most senior marketing executives working today.
The problem with the human condition is that it involves humans. Bringing that condition online, fostering it with the Wisdom of Crowds philosophy, is slowly but surely proving what philosophers have said since humans first learned to write: the anonymous mob is powerful and passionate, but no more rational than an angry swarm of bees.
While Jimmy Wales has been busy of late creating a new search engine and dreaming of challenging Google for dominance within the field, another Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has been working on a new collaborative resource designed at offering more validity and expertise to its entries.
One of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia – apart from the addition of nofollow links – is that anyone can add, delete or modify an entry anonymously. This often causes major headaches – vandalized entries or spam links – and is the Achilles heel of the world’s most popular online encyclopedia.
Read/Write Web had a good overview the attention economy the other week,written by Alex Iskold and edited by Richard MacManus. They suggest information overload will be solved through personalization and explain the trust issues of information metadata. Unfortunately, the analysis is flawed on both the cause and scope of the solution.
You would think it is impossible for one small detail to have a dramatic effect on whether a story is promoted on Digg. Here is how it happened, decide for yourself…
I hadn’t been following the news for a couple of days, so I popped over to one of my old haunts, The Register to see if there was anything I should know about. Occasionally, especially if I visit The Register early morning in Europe, I can pick up some interesting fresh stories that are fairly exclusive, or have some different angles.
Carve out another notch in Google’s gunbelt of months it has led the US search market; meanwhile, quite a few of those searches have led people to Wikipedia.
By the numbers, the comScore report on US search share for January looks a lot like it has the previous 12 months. Google’s on top, holding 47.5 percent of the market. Yahoo is in second and running backwards with 28.1 percent, while Microsoft held on to third with 10.6 percent.
Wikipedia needs Google like plants need sunshine, according to the latest traffic analysis presented by Hitwise. Half of the online publicly-edited encyclopedia’s traffic comes from Google alone, with another 20 percent arising from the other search engines combined.
Humans are predictable creatures, but it’s interesting nonetheless to see seasonal trends depicting where everybody’s going online. January 2007, according comScore, was for taxes, job-hunting, and vacation planning, among a couple of trendy surprises. But the most significant change in traffic was to Wikipedia, which entered the top ten domains for the first time.
Also, as somebody-anybody sentiments rise, visits to potential presidential candidate websites also spiked in January.
Wired Magazine’s Ryan Singel and Kevin Poulsen says that the bloggers got it wrong about Ted Stevens "protecting children" bill. The Wired post ends: "Also the blog world famously claims it’s self-correcting. 27B anxiously awaits proof."
Wikipedia isn’t commercial? Yeah, right.
By the way, Ryan and Kevin’s blog post doesn’t have a link to the bill’s text that works. Anyone have a link that works? Post it in my comments. Thanks!
The monetization of Wikipedia has been the subject of much debate, and even a little venom spitting, for the past several months. With reports surfacing that funding for the user-edited encyclopedia may be running out, will Wikians finally embrace an ad-supported business model?
According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the twelfth most popular site on the entire Internet. Within six months, however, the entire site could be non-existent.
The Chairwoman of Wikipedia foundation, Florence Devouard, is interviewed on video by Nicolas Charbonnier and part of her speech at LIFT is online in the last third of his eight-minute video. On screen is a slide showing Wikipedia’s growth, which is one context behind why Wikipedia needs more funds/donations to keep up in the future. When your service is doubling every few months in near-exponential growth you need to think about how you’re going to pay for future servers and pay for more bandwidth.
Professors at most major universities frown upon research papers that cite Wikipedia as a resource, given the socially driven nature of the site. The United States judicial system, however, seems to believe that using Wikipedia as a reference in court rulings is a good idea.
At Jimbo Wales’ directive, all external links within the English language Wikipedia are now coded "nofollow" — this should help cut spamming immensely onc
The informational integrity of Wikipedia has long been debated throughout the ranks of academia, business communities, and the like. While some cynicism can be lent to the validity of the online reference guide’s volume of information, today’s blogosphere explosion may represent a bit of an overreaction.
I had planned on publishing an in-depth review of the new Wikipedia-based search engine, WikiSeek, but it wasn’t supposed to launch until tomorrow and now TechCrunch has decided not to wait on their coverage.
It’s a little confusing around Wikipedia these days. You can search Wikipedia from within Wikipedia, or seek data from Wikipedia from WikiSeek. Eventually there will be another Wikipedia search from Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales and company, but everyone who thinks it will be called Wikiasari is mistaken because that’s a different project entirely and not the Search Wikia that Wales is developing.
Myths can figure prominently in culture, religion, and entertainment, but most corporations would likely prefer to remain uninvolved. After all, accountants’ spreadsheets just aren’t that compatible with non-factual information. Google probably appreciates it, then, that Ionut Alex. Chitu set about dispelling the top 10 “Google Myths.”
New York Times reports that John Edwards will announce his candidacy on Thursday. It reports: “Mr. Edwards, who is arguably the most Web-savvy candidate in the ’08 race to date, is using Thursday’s event to try to gin up his supporters via the Internet.”
In a December 23rd posting, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales announced the re-focusing of efforts geared toward developing a socially driven search engine. Wikiasari (or Wikia for short) is poised to take a competitive posture toward the larger search engines such as Google and Yahoo, but is this really good for the industry?