Anthony schreef:
On 1/18/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Recently there has been a lot of traffic about search engines. The tone of these discussions have been hostile towards Google. I want to remind you all that it is because of the value Google attaches to our content that we became the number 10 or whatever in the Alexa rankings.
So Google is to blame for that? You say it as though it is necessarily a good thing.
I do not "blame" Google for that, I cherish Google for what it did for us.
When Google were to drop the value it attaches to Wikipedia in favour of for instance Citizendium, it will become clear how important Google is for the dissemination of our Free content.
When STDs and pregnancy can be prevented by an inexpensive, safe and effective once a day pill, those people distributing free condoms will be out of business.
If Citizendium becomes the next great thing as a fork, then Citizendium will be disseminating "your" Free content. If not, then there's little reason to believe Google would drop Wikipedia, just move it down to number two.
When Citizendium becomes "the next great thing", we will have ourselves to blame for it. I believe in the way /we /do our thing. I do not believe that Citizendium will be successful. At the same time, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not understand your reference to STDs. I want to learn more about this as I have an interest in those.. When Wikipedia and Citizendium have more or less the same data, there is no point in having both with the same relevance, just moving it down to number two does therefore not make sense.
When Citizendium finally gets its act together, and does a better job that we do, it will make sense to Google to change its preference. We should not sit on our laurels but innovate. Frankly we can use some competition.
The point that I am making is NOT that we might not consider dabbling in search technology. When we are to do this, we will find a well written proposal in Meta to consider. My point is that Google did a world of good to the Open Content movement. It is relevant that we acknowledge this. They are not like Microsoft who gives us a low ratings because of us competing with their product. Google did good, Google does good.
A large portion of Wikipedia contributors found the site through Google. Of course, a large portion of them also use the Windows operating system. I have as hard of a time imagining a Wikipedia without Microsoft as I do one without Google. In either case some other company would have to take up the slack.
Google and Microsoft are for-profit corporations. Their purpose for existence is to make a profit. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that a corporation can do a lot of good for the world while pursuing the goal of making money. But there's really no reason to acknowledge this.
There is every reason to acknowledge when you benefit from the business practices of a friendly organisation. The absolute minimum that this realisation does is to allow you to acknowledge what it is that makes us a success. When we are smart it means we maintain friendly relations with those organisations that enable our success. Google fits that bill. Microsoft does not appreciate Wikipedia for what it does and as a consequence suffers in its appreciation. I do not touch Microsoft's search engine with a barge pole because of their bias. It is also something that enables the argument why Microsoft is "evil".
I'd love to see Google torn down and replaced with an open source collaborative search engine run democratically by the world. I'd love to have access to a search engine as good as Google, with a truly open API (i.e. sans http://code.google.com/apis/soapsearch/api_terms.html), and with all the results being released under an open content license. Is Wikimedia the one to do that? It's arguable whether it'd be within the scope of the Foundation's mission. And in any case, I haven't seen a reasonable proposal of how to do it. So I guess when it comes to that point, we're both in agreement. And yeah. Google did good. Google does good. But Google did bad, too. Google does bad, too. And Microsoft also did/does good/bad.
Anthony
If you want to improve on what Google does, please do. It does not make sense to decry your wish for an alternative where there is none. Google has been a boon to us. In my value system it is good to acknowledge this. I do not begrudge them being one of the most successful companies at this moment in time. Do better than Google and you may make a difference, but I am sure that Google is a moving target.
Thanks, GerardM