Anthony schreef:
On 1/20/07, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Commerce is an abstraction. Google a reality. The traffic that we have
and the resulting relevance that we acquired as a result is largely due
to Google. This is a reality. As I said earlier, it is relevant to
appreciate our friends. Microsoft's search engine does not do us any
favours. This is a reality. Our aims are in bringing information to
people; that is what Google helps us do. If we had twice the amount of
content and we did not have the traffic that comes from Google we would
not be half as good in achieving our goal. Our goal is to get the
information out, it is not sitting on it and think ourselves great for
having created such a large body of work.
I don't think you're right that 50% of Wikipedia traffic comes as a
result of Google searches ([[Wikipedia:Search_engine_statistics]] says
it's 33%). Nor do I believe that none of that traffic would have come
to Wikipedia had Google not existed. Nor do I believe that Google
should be praised simply for giving Wikipedia a fair ranking. Nor do
I believe that traffic is the sole goal.
Once people become "addicted" to Wikipedia, they go directly to
Wikipedia. This means that the statistics about what percentage actually
comes from any source today does not make plain the effect such a source
has had on our popularity. The aim of the WMF is to make knowledge
available to people. We do that by making this knowledge available; the
amount of traffic has a direct correlation to our success.
Again, I acknowledge the importance that Google played, I am thankful
for all the help we get. All the little bits of help we got helped us to
become what we are today. The Google factor has been substantial; just
consider the amount of Firefox users compared to IE users and wonder why
this happened.
There is also the fact that Wikipedia is not well known in many
countries. When our articles are found positively in search engines, it
will slowly but surely help us get to the tipping point where Wikipedia
is a household name. It is not even well known in countries like Italy.
We need good relations to get us where we will be a well established
movement outside of the English language as well. It helps when we have
friends like Google.
Google does not need to be actively creating Open
Content to be
considered beneficial to the Open Content. As they gave us a fair
ranking in their search engine we thrived. With your dismissal of Google
Books you conveniently ignore the controversy that exists because of the
audacity that Google had in making this tool available. You conveniently
ignore that many publishers went to court in order to prevent this
service in the first place. If anything, Google should be applauded for
services like Google book search, Google scholar.
Don't take my word for it. Read up on what Brewster Kahle from
Internet Archive had to say about Google Book Search, or find out more
about the Open Content Alliance he co-founded largely to respond to
it. "They don't want the books to appear in anyone else's search
engine but their own, which is a little peculiar for a company that
says its mission is to make information universally accessible," Kahle
said.
"Google, for instance, is digitizing some great libraries. But their
contracts (which were actually secret contracts with libraries – which
is bizarre, but anyway, they were secret until they got sued out of
them by some governments) are under such restrictions that they're
pretty useless... the copies that go back to the libraries. Pretty
much Google is trying to set themselves up as the only place to get to
these materials; the only library; the only access. The idea of having
only one company control the library of human knowledge is a
nightmare. I mean this is 1984 – a book about how bad the world would
be if this really came about, if a few governments' control and
corporations' control on information goes too far."
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to choose sides on this one, and I'm
going with Kahle, not with Google.
I have read enough to learn why Google is
getting the opposition to its
program. I agree with that opposition. However, you will also have read
that Bruster Kahle acknowledges that his project is very much a reaction
to the Google project. The opposition that exists is not unlikely to
have Google to reconsider its position. When we consider Google a
friend, we can as a friend discuss these issues. When we consider Google
an enemy, we will not even try to engage in a conversation.
I object to see enemies everywhere, I prefer to see friends that have a
different outlook, friends that may be convinced to consider an other
approach. I think this approach is more productive.
Thanks,
GerardM