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. 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 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.
Thanks, GerardM
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 do not consider these discussions representative in how Wikipedians see the work of the commercial search engines and their impact in how Wikipedia developed. There has been great collaboration in many specific problems.
I am quite worried about the lack of facts in those speculation that usually lead to "Wikipedia vs. Yahoo/Google/whatever".
Mathias
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.
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 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.
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
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:13:18 -0500 Von: Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org
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
Who is in defence of Google? Wikifoundation?
The problem is, Jimmy is one of the founders of wikipedia, has nothing to do with wikiseek; and wikiasari is a concept supported by a lot of people. But: If wikifoundation makes a peerpedia-search, this means that there are several conflicts. Is wikiasari more in solidarity to wikiseek, because they both are for-profit ads-projects? or more in solidarity to peerpedia, to support the core competencies of the foundation? Wikifoundation need the courage, to steal Jimmies Idea to make it (a search project) really open with p2p and without ads. Ok, this is not about one person and I do not want to annoy anyone, so let´s talk about the peerpedia project of the foundation here on this list. Wikiasari is a different project on a different list.
This simple sentence, said by Jim originally, means foe the rest of the foundation members, to have the courage, to first develop a similar project and split the development. This must be the rest of the foundation board members aware of. Acting like wikiseek and play a card against the wikisariproject. And this card here was suggested as a peerpedia-search, which means (as the url was announced with a concept) to set up several yacy.net servers to index the web p2p.
(Or: Jim has to be asked, if he is agreeing to make wikiasari a kind of a peerpedia project and if we are pulling the same goals. He still has not announced, if nutch or yacy is on the three servers and/or if there is a cooperation with the foundation, last I guess not, but if this is clear, this means we need couraged people to do the same from the foundation side but only p2p with the community).
I wonder, why the members here on the list doubt the core cometencies or Mission of the foundation, if the peerpedia-search project is in accordance.
Here is the mission again: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
you see, several stars fit the project and social software is nutch not at all, it is yacy, this is why I recomment to ask Jim to join the peerpedia idea with his large knowledge and history experience.
We could wook out a proposal (which jim announced the day before his disney journey on anotehr list, but still has not published) together, here is the peerpedia "blanket" for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_P2-search_peerpedia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
The general purpose and objectives of the Foundation shall be the following:
Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online *free*, *open content* encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks *and other collections of documents*, *information*, and other informational *databases* in *all* the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org.
The goals of the foundation are to *encourage* the further growth and development of *open content*, *****social software**** WikiWiki-based projects (see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge. In addition to managing the already developed multilingual general encyclopedia and almanac named Wikipedia, (http://www.wikipedia.org) there is a multi-language dictionary and thesaurus named Wiktionary, an encyclopedia of quotations named Wikiquote, a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks and a collection of source works called Wikisource; other projects are envisioned like **peerpedia** - the open source search-engine yacy.net community in a p2p style. The Foundation also manages the operations of the largely dormant Nupedia project (which is not a wiki but is open content).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW: we discuss here only in a free brainstorming, and indeed the leader of foundation and the leader of wikia should meet at a round tabel and discuss, if a collaboration is possible, and if the foundation is behind the p2p idea, which several times was stated as the only way to have 1 Mio google servers in defence. If both leaders or the board does not agree, the question is open, if the foundation is willing to start and found a yacy-wikipedia-indexing serverfarm project with several servers.
Ok, let´s say each year we add 2 servers. Is this too much? Yacysearch.com has done this in one weel with 7 servers.
Kind regards.
Getting an open source search engine would definitely be a great thing. Best thing would be if a cooperation were programmed in, so that we can have different search engines based on the same platform which cooperate at some places (especially spidering), but each serve somewhat different niches (for example, search engines for specific subjects, separate ones for entertainment, shopping and research, for fringe languages etcetera). And I definitely agree the Wikimedia Foundation should stand behind such an initiative.
However, I doubt whether the Foundation is actually the right group to be the organizer or main supporter of such a development. We have our mission statement, but we also have our background. And to me our background and strongpoint is definitely with 'massive volunteer collaboration'. If that's not the best mode of operation for this project, we may not be the best ones to do it.
My feeling is that if you put something like that into the workings of a search engine, what you end up with will be more like dmoz than with Google. If we want a real search engine, there will be a massive task of creating and maintaining the software, but hand-improving the database is not something that works very well with the 'thousands of volunteers' approach. In short, I think that an open source search engine is definitely something that should be worked on, better start yesterday than today, but I think it's a task that would be more fitting for the likes of the Free Software Foundation than for the Wikimedia Foundation.
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
On 1/19/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/18/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Well, good. At this point I have serious doubts about CZ myself. But I think I understand what you're talking about. At some point something else will come along which is better than Wikipedia. But at that point Google isn't going to save the day just by putting Wikipedia at the top of search results.
I do not understand your reference to STDs. I want to learn more about this as I have an interest in those..
My point is, when Wikipedia becomes irrelevant because something better comes along, it should be regarded as a victory, not a loss. The end-game here is not to run a popular website, it's to freely spread knowledge.
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.
If CZ becomes successful without being a fork of Wikipedia (and they're apparently going to try), then it *won't* have the same data as Wikipedia. It's unlikely it'll even have "more or less the same data".
But thinking about this, I guess it's unclear to me what this has to do with Google being important to the dissemination of Free Content. Is the "our" part of that important? Is this about whether or not CZ will be Free Content? I just learned today that they're considering CC-by-NC. I guess if they choose that license it'll matter. But Google doesn't seem to rank Free Content sites any higher than others.
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'll have to think more about that. Personally I think Microsoft's search engine is crap, but I'm using their OS to write this message, so if one is going to have to acknowledge every company which has contributed to making Wikipedia possible, I don't think you can ignore Microsoft.
If you want to improve on what Google does, please do.
If I get the time and/or the money, I will. But in the meantime, I'm not going to make them out to be this great company that does no wrong.
I mean, if you want to improve on what Microsoft does, please do. Do you see how that statement isn't really helpful?
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.
And if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I'm not ashamed to admit that I am a co-owner of both Google and Microsoft. But I wouldn't make either of those two companies out to be worthy of praise.
If Google didn't exist at all, I don't think Wikipedia would be any worse off.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/19/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/18/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Well, good. At this point I have serious doubts about CZ myself. But I think I understand what you're talking about. At some point something else will come along which is better than Wikipedia. But at that point Google isn't going to save the day just by putting Wikipedia at the top of search results.
I do not understand your reference to STDs. I want to learn more about this as I have an interest in those..
My point is, when Wikipedia becomes irrelevant because something better comes along, it should be regarded as a victory, not a loss. The end-game here is not to run a popular website, it's to freely spread knowledge.
Citizendium can only be considered "Free knowledge" when it is indeed Free knowledge. You mention that they may use the CC-by-ND license. Not only is that license incompatible with the GFDL, being more restrictive, it will prevent them from using the Wikipedia content as its source. This is likely to brake the back of their project as I am sure that a sufficient large group of people will create a class action that Citizendium cannot win.
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.
If CZ becomes successful without being a fork of Wikipedia (and they're apparently going to try), then it *won't* have the same data as Wikipedia. It's unlikely it'll even have "more or less the same data".
But thinking about this, I guess it's unclear to me what this has to do with Google being important to the dissemination of Free Content. Is the "our" part of that important? Is this about whether or not CZ will be Free Content? I just learned today that they're considering CC-by-NC. I guess if they choose that license it'll matter. But Google doesn't seem to rank Free Content sites any higher than others.
Here the law makes all the difference and prevent CZ from using the Wikipedia content.
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'll have to think more about that. Personally I think Microsoft's search engine is crap, but I'm using their OS to write this message, so if one is going to have to acknowledge every company which has contributed to making Wikipedia possible, I don't think you can ignore Microsoft.
The fact that anyone uses a Microsoft OS makes no difference to the quality of their search engine.
If you want to improve on what Google does, please do.
If I get the time and/or the money, I will. But in the meantime, I'm not going to make them out to be this great company that does no wrong.
I mean, if you want to improve on what Microsoft does, please do. Do you see how that statement isn't really helpful?
You can improve on Microsoft by not choosing their product as the basis of your entry to the computerised world. You can have a BSD, Apple, Linux desktop instead.
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.
And if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I'm not ashamed to admit that I am a co-owner of both Google and Microsoft. But I wouldn't make either of those two companies out to be worthy of praise.
If Google didn't exist at all, I don't think Wikipedia would be any worse off.
There is anecdotal evidence that you are SO wrong.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/19/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Citizendium can only be considered "Free knowledge" when it is indeed Free knowledge.
And right now, Citizendium *is* "Free knowledge".
You mention that they may use the CC-by-ND license. Not only is that license incompatible with the GFDL, being more restrictive, it will prevent them from using the Wikipedia content as its source. This is likely to brake the back of their project as I am sure that a sufficient large group of people will create a class action that Citizendium cannot win.
I'm not sure what you mean by a class action, but yes, I agree that CZ will almost surely not survive if they go with CC-by-NC (which was what is being considered, not CC-by-ND).
If CZ becomes successful without being a fork of Wikipedia (and they're apparently going to try), then it *won't* have the same data as Wikipedia. It's unlikely it'll even have "more or less the same data".
But thinking about this, I guess it's unclear to me what this has to do with Google being important to the dissemination of Free Content. Is the "our" part of that important? Is this about whether or not CZ will be Free Content? I just learned today that they're considering CC-by-NC. I guess if they choose that license it'll matter. But Google doesn't seem to rank Free Content sites any higher than others.
Here the law makes all the difference and prevent CZ from using the Wikipedia content.
As of this Saturday, CZ is going to stop using Wikipedia content by default, at least on a trial basis.
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'll have to think more about that. Personally I think Microsoft's search engine is crap, but I'm using their OS to write this message, so if one is going to have to acknowledge every company which has contributed to making Wikipedia possible, I don't think you can ignore Microsoft.
The fact that anyone uses a Microsoft OS makes no difference to the quality of their search engine.
I didn't mean to imply it did.
If you want to improve on what Google does, please do.
If I get the time and/or the money, I will. But in the meantime, I'm not going to make them out to be this great company that does no wrong.
I mean, if you want to improve on what Microsoft does, please do. Do you see how that statement isn't really helpful?
You can improve on Microsoft by not choosing their product as the basis of your entry to the computerised world. You can have a BSD, Apple, Linux desktop instead.
So am I improving on Google by using a different search engine? What if I use Scroogle (which, actually, I do)?
If Google didn't exist at all, I don't think Wikipedia would be any worse off.
There is anecdotal evidence that you are SO wrong.
Interesting. I'm not aware of any such evidence. Yes, a lot of contributors to Wikipedia happened to first hear about it due to a Google search. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have heard about it if they used some other search engine.
Personally I think it was Slashdot that brought me to Google. So I guess they're to blame for my arrival. But then again, it might have been Google. I'm pretty sure it was one or the other.
But I don't even remember what search engine I used before Google. I think it was Yahoo. Do Wikipedia pages rank high in Yahoo? Ah, Yahoo, I remember when *that* used to be the corporation that everyone loved and praised. Now they're helping the Chinese put people in jail. I wonder how long before Google does that little bit of evil. AFAIK they haven't actively helped the government put people in jail...yet.
Anthony
On 1/19/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
[...] But I don't even remember what search engine I used before Google. I think it was Yahoo. Do Wikipedia pages rank high in Yahoo? Ah, Yahoo, I remember when *that* used to be the corporation that everyone loved and praised. Now they're helping the Chinese put people in jail. I wonder how long before Google does that little bit of evil. AFAIK they haven't actively helped the government put people in jail...yet.
The whole question of how does an enlightened, open information society engage with a closed, top-down one in which information is controlled by a somewhat hostile dictatorial government is both interesting and the subject of much hand-wringing and hyperbole.
1980s and 90s assumptions were that governments would ultimately be unable to balance in the middle, and information would either flow nearly completely freely, or not at all. China has shown that there is a middle ground that their government can balance in.
The mere existence of a viable middle ground is a challenge for both the theory and practice of open information, as conceived in the 1990s by the "Open *" movements. A lot of "Open *" zealots are trying hard to put their head in the sand and refuse to reopen the fundamental ethical issues in light of an apparent paradigm failure.
A lot of companies staffed and led by "Open *" people who have gotten somewhat more practical and pragmatic are engaging with China, in ways which are to some greater or lesser extent annoying to "Open *" zealots. However, with the terms of engagement being "Play ball, or don't play at all", it's not clear that the ultimate ethics and goals of the "Open *" movement aren't better served by playing ball for the moment and keeping the unwanted but functional middle ground's ultimate demise as a goal in our hearts.
It's also not clear that playing ball IS ultimately the right answer - the question has not been adequately addressed. In most venues, it's not even being brought up or phrased properly. Not having met the "core" WP people in person or attended the conferences yet, I don't know the degree to which that discussion happens elsewhere, but on the mailing lists so far it's not being addressed here much better than anywhere else.
If you fault Google for their policy, and Yahoo for theirs, that's fine... but for all of our sakes, don't just go around harshing on them on the Wikipedia foundation list. If you are going to bring up the question, bring it up in the context of what's really wrong here (nobody understands the "right" thing to do about it) and how WP can participate in fixing that (figuring out the right thing).
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
[...] But I don't even remember what search engine I used before Google. I think it was Yahoo. Do Wikipedia pages rank high in Yahoo? Ah, Yahoo, I remember when *that* used to be the corporation that everyone loved and praised. Now they're helping the Chinese put people in jail. I wonder how long before Google does that little bit of evil. AFAIK they haven't actively helped the government put people in jail...yet.
If you fault Google for their policy, and Yahoo for theirs, that's fine... but for all of our sakes, don't just go around harshing on them on the Wikipedia foundation list. If you are going to bring up the question, bring it up in the context of what's really wrong here (nobody understands the "right" thing to do about it) and how WP can participate in fixing that (figuring out the right thing).
Actually I wasn't faulting Google for their policy at all. I was faulting Yahoo for theirs, namely for divulging confidential information knowing full well that information was going to put an innocent person in jail. As I said, I'm not aware of Google actually doing that yet.
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
Well, this isn't the place for praising corporations either, then.
Anthony
On 1/19/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
[...] But I don't even remember what search engine I used before Google. I think it was Yahoo. Do Wikipedia pages rank high in Yahoo? Ah, Yahoo, I remember when *that* used to be the corporation that everyone loved and praised. Now they're helping the Chinese put people in jail. I wonder how long before Google does that little bit of evil. AFAIK they haven't actively helped the government put people in jail...yet.
If you fault Google for their policy, and Yahoo for theirs, that's fine... but for all of our sakes, don't just go around harshing on them on the Wikipedia foundation list. If you are going to bring up the question, bring it up in the context of what's really wrong here (nobody understands the "right" thing to do about it) and how WP can participate in fixing that (figuring out the right thing).
Actually I wasn't faulting Google for their policy at all. I was faulting Yahoo for theirs, namely for divulging confidential information knowing full well that information was going to put an innocent person in jail. As I said, I'm not aware of Google actually doing that yet.
You're giving several people the impression that you are trying to bag on several corporations.
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
Well, this isn't the place for praising corporations either, then.
It's not praising them to note that they're an integral part of how the Internet's typical user experience works, and how Wikipedia is being used by typical users.
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You're giving several people the impression that you are trying to bag on several corporations.
I'm not even sure what it means "to bag on" a corporation, so I guess I'll take your word on it.
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
Well, this isn't the place for praising corporations either, then.
It's not praising them to note that they're an integral part of how the Internet's typical user experience works, and how Wikipedia is being used by typical users.
It is praising Google to claim that "Google did a world of good to the Open Content movement".
Google is in no way a part of the open content movement. In fact, much of what they do is directly opposed to the open content movement. APIs that can't be used without agreeing to a highly restrictive terms of service, patents which inhibit others from building upon their innovative approach to search, tons of content all Copyright (c) Google with all rights reserved. They even throw their watermarks and copyright notices on public domain content trying to claim it as their own.
Google runs a search engine that is smart enough to put Wikipedia articles at the top of searches for which a Wikipedia article is one of the most relevant results. Whoop-de-do, that's not doing a world of good to the Open Content movement, that's making a popular search engine so you can sell lots of ads.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You're giving several people the impression that you are trying to bag on several corporations.
I'm not even sure what it means "to bag on" a corporation, so I guess I'll take your word on it.
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
Well, this isn't the place for praising corporations either, then.
It's not praising them to note that they're an integral part of how the Internet's typical user experience works, and how Wikipedia is being used by typical users.
It is praising Google to claim that "Google did a world of good to the Open Content movement".
Google is in no way a part of the open content movement. In fact, much of what they do is directly opposed to the open content movement. APIs that can't be used without agreeing to a highly restrictive terms of service, patents which inhibit others from building upon their innovative approach to search, tons of content all Copyright (c) Google with all rights reserved. They even throw their watermarks and copyright notices on public domain content trying to claim it as their own.
Google runs a search engine that is smart enough to put Wikipedia articles at the top of searches for which a Wikipedia article is one of the most relevant results. Whoop-de-do, that's not doing a world of good to the Open Content movement, that's making a popular search engine so you can sell lots of ads.
Anthony
Hoi, The open content movement is not living in a vacuum. When you insists on everybody to behave like you would see the world and be overly negative about everyone that is not like that, you must live in a frustrating world. Google did and does a world of good. It is not an open source organisation but it has played a crucial role in making us what we are. It has contributed significantly to Open Source projects. One of their best policies is that they create their software in such a way that you can move away from Google if you so choose. If you want to reduce it to only "they did it for their own reason" fine, but you do not convince me.
In the mean time, the WMF has a problem that is increasingly serious, we got a million and a bit out of our fund-raiser where we need a million and a half. Where we could use a million and one more. We predict that our growth is exponential. In my mind the biggest problem we have is a culture where other organisations, particular organisations that earn money are trash talked. Whoop-de-do that is just like it is baby; freedom of expression. And yes, but it is utterly irresponsible. In the case of Google, they made us and continue to make us as big as we are, and your aversion to selling ads does not detract one iota from that. They did not have to do such a thing. Were they in the pocket of the big content owners, they would not have done so and consequently we would not have been the big relevant movement that is changing the way people look at Open Content and licensing in the first place.
I started this thread because to me it is essential to understand who our friends are. It is important to understand with whom we share values. It is important to understand for whom Open Content and Open Source can become more relevant and why. By engaging our friends and our could be friends, it is possible to increase the relevancy of what we do. We increase the potential for the WMF to realise its aims. It is sad that some choose to have such a narrow negative view on the world that they destroy opportunities. It is a fact of life that they are part of our community and it is for that reason that I feel it is necessary to repeat; Google has been good to us.
Thanks, GerardM
GerardM is not alone.
I do agree, with Gerards view. Why this hostility to commerce, I don't understand? Let's use them for our purposes in stead of renounce them!
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/20, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You're giving several people the impression that you are trying to bag on several corporations.
I'm not even sure what it means "to bag on" a corporation, so I guess I'll take your word on it.
This is not the place for merely bagging on the corporations. It's one of many places where real serious discussions could start on what to do next.
Well, this isn't the place for praising corporations either, then.
It's not praising them to note that they're an integral part of how the Internet's typical user experience works, and how Wikipedia is being used by typical users.
It is praising Google to claim that "Google did a world of good to the Open Content movement".
Google is in no way a part of the open content movement. In fact, much of what they do is directly opposed to the open content movement. APIs that can't be used without agreeing to a highly restrictive terms of service, patents which inhibit others from building upon their innovative approach to search, tons of content all Copyright (c) Google with all rights reserved. They even throw their watermarks and copyright notices on public domain content trying to claim it as their own.
Google runs a search engine that is smart enough to put Wikipedia articles at the top of searches for which a Wikipedia article is one of the most relevant results. Whoop-de-do, that's not doing a world of good to the Open Content movement, that's making a popular search engine so you can sell lots of ads.
Anthony
Hoi, The open content movement is not living in a vacuum. When you insists on everybody to behave like you would see the world and be overly negative about everyone that is not like that, you must live in a frustrating world. Google did and does a world of good. It is not an open source organisation but it has played a crucial role in making us what we are. It has contributed significantly to Open Source projects. One of their best policies is that they create their software in such a way that you can move away from Google if you so choose. If you want to reduce it to only "they did it for their own reason" fine, but you do not convince me.
In the mean time, the WMF has a problem that is increasingly serious, we got a million and a bit out of our fund-raiser where we need a million and a half. Where we could use a million and one more. We predict that our growth is exponential. In my mind the biggest problem we have is a culture where other organisations, particular organisations that earn money are trash talked. Whoop-de-do that is just like it is baby; freedom of expression. And yes, but it is utterly irresponsible. In the case of Google, they made us and continue to make us as big as we are, and your aversion to selling ads does not detract one iota from that. They did not have to do such a thing. Were they in the pocket of the big content owners, they would not have done so and consequently we would not have been the big relevant movement that is changing the way people look at Open Content and licensing in the first place.
I started this thread because to me it is essential to understand who our friends are. It is important to understand with whom we share values. It is important to understand for whom Open Content and Open Source can become more relevant and why. By engaging our friends and our could be friends, it is possible to increase the relevancy of what we do. We increase the potential for the WMF to realise its aims. It is sad that some choose to have such a narrow negative view on the world that they destroy opportunities. It is a fact of life that they are part of our community and it is for that reason that I feel it is necessary to repeat; Google has been good to us.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/20/07, Peter van Londen londenp@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM is not alone.
I do agree, with Gerards view. Why this hostility to commerce, I don't understand? Let's use them for our purposes in stead of renounce them!
If you know anything about me you'd know I'm not at all hostile to commerce. There's nothing at all wrong with commerce. I just don't think commerce is something to be praised.
I also think it's a joke to say that Google is a proponent of open content. Google Video: DRM. Google Book Search: DRM. The list of Google's adoption of policies which go completely against open content goes on and on. Maybe they donate to some open source projects. In fact, if you want to say that "Google did a world of good to the Open" SOURCE movement, I won't object. But the original statement that touched off my objection was talking about Open Content, not Open Source.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/20/07, Peter van Londen londenp@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM is not alone.
I do agree, with Gerards view. Why this hostility to commerce, I don't understand? Let's use them for our purposes in stead of renounce them!
If you know anything about me you'd know I'm not at all hostile to commerce. There's nothing at all wrong with commerce. I just don't think commerce is something to be praised.
I also think it's a joke to say that Google is a proponent of open content. Google Video: DRM. Google Book Search: DRM. The list of Google's adoption of policies which go completely against open content goes on and on. Maybe they donate to some open source projects. In fact, if you want to say that "Google did a world of good to the Open" SOURCE movement, I won't object. But the original statement that touched off my objection was talking about Open Content, not Open Source.
Anthony
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.
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. Writers and publishers have praised Google because their offerings can now be found and have a second lease of commercial life. It is exactly a service like Google book search that prevents the monopolistic content of most of the book shops to dominate even more. It may be an inconvenient truth, but Google does good where it matters. What matters is that information becomes available to people and it is not just the Open Content project and communities that have a patent on this.
I will confess, I am not really interested in video, but I would not be surprised if it turns out that you are wrong on that as well.
So please repeat after me, Google did and does well for us. Google is our friend.
Thanks, GerardM
PS .. well do not bother.. just trying to be funny.
On 1/20/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@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.
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.
Writers and publishers have praised Google because their offerings can now be found and have a second lease of commercial life. It is exactly a service like Google book search that prevents the monopolistic content of most of the book shops to dominate even more. It may be an inconvenient truth, but Google does good where it matters. What matters is that information becomes available to people and it is not just the Open Content project and communities that have a patent on this.
I will confess, I am not really interested in video, but I would not be surprised if it turns out that you are wrong on that as well.
So please repeat after me, Google did and does well for us. Google is our friend.
Thanks, GerardM
PS .. well do not bother.. just trying to be funny.
Anthony schreef:
On 1/20/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@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
On 1/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
When we consider them a corporation trying to make a buck, and not a friend or an enemy, we are best positioned to engage in that conversation. By all means this world we live in rewards those who form symbiotic relationships. If I ever referred to Google as the enemy, then I admit I was wrong for that.
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.
I prefer to see corporations as corporations, entities that are bound by law not to have friends or enemies but only to consider what is in the best interest of their shareholders in terms of making the most money (in terms of for-profit US corporations, anyway). By all means I think we should recognize that corporations do change their approaches. But that has nothing to do with them being a friend and everything to do with it being in the best interests of both of us to do, whatever.
I'd love to see Google do a complete 180 on its relationship with the open content movement. Do you see any way they could do that without destroying their entire business? For now I think it's enough that they don't actively try to harm Wikipedia and other open content sites by biasing their search results against them. So thank you Google. Thanks for not destroying us. We love you.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
When we consider them a corporation trying to make a buck, and not a friend or an enemy, we are best positioned to engage in that conversation. By all means this world we live in rewards those who form symbiotic relationships. If I ever referred to Google as the enemy, then I admit I was wrong for that.
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.
I prefer to see corporations as corporations, entities that are bound by law not to have friends or enemies but only to consider what is in the best interest of their shareholders in terms of making the most money (in terms of for-profit US corporations, anyway). By all means I think we should recognize that corporations do change their approaches. But that has nothing to do with them being a friend and everything to do with it being in the best interests of both of us to do, whatever.
I'd love to see Google do a complete 180 on its relationship with the open content movement. Do you see any way they could do that without destroying their entire business? For now I think it's enough that they don't actively try to harm Wikipedia and other open content sites by biasing their search results against them. So thank you Google. Thanks for not destroying us. We love you.
Anthony
Hoi, Yes, I see Google change several of their business practices without destroying their business model. It is in the fact that they DID make their applications in such a way that you are able to remove your data from their applications. This gives users some confidence. It is in the fact that their motto is to do good. I see it in organisations denying Google the possibility to digitise their content because of the reasons given; this thwarts their objective and at some stage even Google has to collaborate in order to achieve what they really want. They do not require exclusivity here either to be the best.
In this day and age where Time makes "us" the person of the year 2006, it will take time to get companies and organisations to connect to the changed way of this new brave world. It is for us to understand what is key in what we do, and keep to those values. What we have to learn is how to make our effort sustainable giving the growth of our projects. It will not be easy and neither will it be uncontroversial however it is the road in front of us.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Anthony schreef:
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.
While I understand that we must find accomodation with Google, it would be naive to give them our complete trust. We don't know if their deals with the libraries are exclusive ones that would prevent anyone else from doing the same thing. For now, database protection laws are limited to Eueope, but if they were to be adopted in the United States they would be give a tremendous advantage to Google which could then develop a user pay system for which only they are capable of providing convenient access. The major future problems will not be with the publishers who are currently in court with Google. Control of the old material whose copyright has already expired will make for a far more important battle. For now I don't think we have the funding or organization to challenge them, certainly not by ourselves. Whether that level of collaboration can coallesce among a wide range of open access supporters is unclear.
Ec
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Anthony schreef:
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.
While I understand that we must find accomodation with Google, it would be naive to give them our complete trust. We don't know if their deals with the libraries are exclusive ones that would prevent anyone else from doing the same thing. For now, database protection laws are limited to Eueope, but if they were to be adopted in the United States they would be give a tremendous advantage to Google which could then develop a user pay system for which only they are capable of providing convenient access. The major future problems will not be with the publishers who are currently in court with Google. Control of the old material whose copyright has already expired will make for a far more important battle. For now I don't think we have the funding or organization to challenge them, certainly not by ourselves. Whether that level of collaboration can coallesce among a wide range of open access supporters is unclear.
Ec
Hoi, When PD material scanned in the University of Harvard is digitised, it is still PD material. This means that there is no reason why the same book from the University of Amsterdam or where ever cannot be digitised with the same sterling results. The biggest advantage that Google has is first mover advantage. This can be quite crucial. However, when Google were to charge for access to this data, the back lash would be sufficient to invigorate all the other projects aiming to digitise content and kill off much of the good will that many people have for Google. This is something I think they do not need explained.
I am positive that when there is a manifest need for making the books Free because of Google making it not available for Free to the public, the money and the will available to challenge Google will be sufficient to seriously harm Google in its reach. This will not stop at books, it will include search Remember who the person of the year 2006 is..
When a peer to peer search system becomes available, it is particularly the organisations that currently pay Google for their adverts that will have an interest in sharing some of their storage and bandwidth. The question would then be how to factor that in the search results; one way would be to make sure that their stuff is ALWAYS up to date..
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The open content movement is not living in a vacuum. When you insists on
everybody to behave like you would see the world and be overly negative about everyone that is not like that, you must live in a frustrating world. Google did and does a world of good. It is not an open source organisation but it has played a crucial role in making us what we are. It has contributed significantly to Open Source projects. One of their best policies is that they create their software in such a way that you can move away from Google if you so choose. If you want to reduce it to only "they did it for their own reason" fine, but you do not convince me.
...
I started this thread because to me it is essential to understand who our friends are. It is important to understand with whom we share values. It is important to understand for whom Open Content and Open Source can become more relevant and why. By engaging our friends and our could be friends, it is possible to increase the relevancy of what we do. We increase the potential for the WMF to realise its aims. It is sad that some choose to have such a narrow negative view on the world that they destroy opportunities. It is a fact of life that they are part of our community and it is for that reason that I feel it is necessary to repeat; Google has been good to us.
As critical as I may be of capitalism I have to agree with the main thrust of Gerard's comments. Oddly enough these comments are closely related to my criticisms of those who wanted to import all of Northwestern University's database of African maps just because we could. One can never expect that enforceable rules can be written to deal with situation. It is more often a matter of having the vision of a wider view.
We have already done very well in integrating the efforts of editors with diametrically opposed and severely conflicting opinions into articles that progressively approach NPOV. There is still much more to do, but at least we are heading in the right direction. Having advanced on this front internally, we also need to do so externally. Wikipedia is a part of an external community just as much as its editors are a part of an internal community. Open Access will bring about its own collapse unless the members of that club learn to work collaboratively. As long as some members of the club insist on maximizing their profits to extreme levels without regard to the effects of such a strategy, and some others remain dedicated to having everything free-as-in-beer confrontation is inevitable. Henry Ford had enough vision to see that if the workers could not buy his cars his business would not be profitable.
We also need to be ever conscious that we are in uncharted business territory. Wikipedia may very well be a top-ten website, but it is also unique in being the only non-profit in that club. That's an awesome place. There are many people to whom the notion that a nonprofit could do so well is incomprehensible. We can't be throwing stones at those who could be our major collaborators, and we need to allow room for relatively smaller players to do their thing.
Ec
Anthony wrote:
On 1/19/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If CZ becomes successful without being a fork of Wikipedia (and they're apparently going to try), then it *won't* have the same data as Wikipedia. It's unlikely it'll even have "more or less the same data".
But thinking about this, I guess it's unclear to me what this has to do with Google being important to the dissemination of Free Content. Is the "our" part of that important? Is this about whether or not CZ will be Free Content? I just learned today that they're considering CC-by-NC. I guess if they choose that license it'll matter. But Google doesn't seem to rank Free Content sites any higher than others.
Here the law makes all the difference and prevent CZ from using the Wikipedia content.
As of this Saturday, CZ is going to stop using Wikipedia content by default, at least on a trial basis.
I'm sure that this move will do wonders for their growth. I only one year they could be as big and successful as Nupedia. How they choose to handle licensing is their problem. I can't see how starting everything from scratch will make their work very easy. It's like shooting oneself in the foot as a cure for corns.
Ec
On 1/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I'm sure that this move will do wonders for their growth.
Can't do much worse, there are currently only about 10 active contributors to Citizendium.
I only one year they could be as big and successful as Nupedia.
It seems to me they've already surpassed Nupedia. I'm not sure why you'd make the comparison, though. Wikipedia and Nupedia *both* started from scratch (Rambot and FOLDOC aside, anyway).
How they choose to handle licensing is their problem. I can't see how starting everything from scratch will make their work very easy. It's like shooting oneself in the foot as a cure for corns.
Personally I'm a big supporter of them starting from scratch. It won't make things easy, but it's the only way I can see the quality of their articles truly surpassing that of Wikipedia. If an article can be improved incrementally, then Wikipedia is in the best position to do that, not Citizendium.
Where I think CZ is going wrong is that they are making this policy too late and too abruptly. Mediawiki is not designed for the kind of writing that facilitates producing a really high quality article. There's a talk page attached to each article, but that's it. Nowhere to store notes from reading materials, nowhere to produce an outline, nowhere to store detailed information about your sources. Sure, you can put this information on the talk page, or you could put it into the article itself, probably using complicated templates that are only intuitive to the seasoned pros, but this isn't very convenient, and such a process hasn't really been adopted anyway. I suppose also you could put this information somewhere outside the wiki, but that's going to cause a serious setback to the ability to collaborate. None of this was talked about at CZ. Instead, Larry announced from very early on that being a fork was the best way to go, and so all the plans from there on out about how to proceed assumed that was how it was going to be.
Maybe taking about CZ in this context is beyond the scope of this mailing list. I don't really think so, though, because watching CZ make mistakes and learn new things is a good exercise.
Anthony
Hi,
Gerard Meijssen schrieb am 18.01.2007 18:16:
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. 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.
My english isn't the best for sure, but I think your posting implies that Google is tempering search results by adding a bonus to results from Wikipedia and/or that Google will perhaps adjust this bonus down and adding a higher one to results from Citizendium. I hope I don't got you wrong.
In my understanding this is NOT the case and I have no data or source to believe otherwise. I believe that Wikipedia entries are listed high in Google because they match the existing automatic pagerank and search algorithms and there is no 'handwork' needed. If someone has other informations, please share them, thanks.
Bye, avatar.
Tim 'avatar' Bartel schreef:
Hi,
Gerard Meijssen schrieb am 18.01.2007 18:16:
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. 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.
My english isn't the best for sure, but I think your posting implies that Google is tempering search results by adding a bonus to results from Wikipedia and/or that Google will perhaps adjust this bonus down and adding a higher one to results from Citizendium. I hope I don't got you wrong.
In my understanding this is NOT the case and I have no data or source to believe otherwise. I believe that Wikipedia entries are listed high in Google because they match the existing automatic pagerank and search algorithms and there is no 'handwork' needed. If someone has other informations, please share them, thanks.
Bye, avatar.
Hoi, All search engines have metrics and these are adjusted to perform in the way that is considered best. Wikipedia has demonstrated in most languages great quality and this made sure that Google has valued us. When Citizendium proves that it does a better job, they deserve to be rewarded by a higher Google rating than us. Nothing special, nothing sinister.
In contrast it is well known that Microsoft has downgraded Wikipedia because we compete with one of their products. It is this type of bias that makes their search offering unpalatable and why I advise against its use. Thanks, GerardM
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org