Here's a very unscientific and informal gauge of how great Wikipedia has become compared to other encyclopedias: the Google fight (www.googlefight.com). It simply compares Google hits and displays it in a rather humorous format.
Wikipedia - 11,200,000
Encyclopedia Britannica - 1,670,000 Encyclopaedia Britannica - 1,420,000 Encyclopædia Britannica - 803
Encyclopedia Americana - 94,700 Encyclopaedia Americana - 11,500 Encyclopædia Americana - 88
Encarta - 5,060,000 Microsoft Encarta - 1,070,000
Funk and Wagnalls - 36,400
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia - 11,300
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia - 29,000 Grolier's Encyclopedia - 5,920
The Star Trek Encyclopedia - 108,000
Interesting to note that Wikipedia loses against "World Book" (14,800,000) but not "World Book Encyclopedia" (3,130,000).
For comparison, Wikipedia wins against Internet Explorer - 10,900,000 The Simpsons - 9,900,000 (the Simpson family member with the highest score is Lisa Simpson) iPod - 8,390,000 World Cup - 7,870,000 ESPN - 5,520,000 Warcraft - 3,860,000 Super Bowl - 3,590,000 Slashdot - 3,490,000 National Football League - 2,600,000 (although Wikipedia loses to "NFL" - 13,300,000) Pokemon - 2,470,000 (like "Encyclopædia Britannica", you get less results with the correct spelling of "Pokémon") Street Fighter - 1,900,000 (speaking of which, Marvel beats Capcom, which beats SNK) Starcraft - 1,680,000
Wikipedia tied against SourceForge, and lost embarassingly to football (42,700,000), Google (59,600,000) and eBay (65,300,000).
As for Wikipedia's dictionary counterpart, Wiktionary loses a lot of its Google fights...
Wiktionary - 331,000
Oxford English Dictionary - 2,090,000 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - 1,160,000 New Oxford American Dictionary - 796,000 Concise Oxford Dictionary - 182,000
All data based on results on July 15, 2004.
Hi,
Le Friday 16 July 2004 07:30, kelvSYC a écrit :
Here's a very unscientific and informal gauge of how great Wikipedia has become compared to other encyclopedias: the Google fight (www.googlefight.com). It simply compares Google hits and displays it in a rather humorous format.
Wikipedia - 11,200,000
Encyclopedia Britannica - 1,670,000 Encyclopaedia Britannica - 1,420,000 Encyclopædia Britannica - 803
Encyclopedia Americana - 94,700 Encyclopaedia Americana - 11,500 Encyclopædia Americana - 88
This is not very fair :
Britannica gets 14 400 000 results Americana gets 3 340 000 results
Yann
This was cute.
In 1966, John Lennon caused a bit of a stir by saying that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus". I'm not an international rock star, so hopefully no one will notice if I post this link:
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Wikipedia&q2=Jesus&... and this one: http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Wikipedia&q2=Beatles&am...
Beatles 5,560,000 Jesus 5,190,000
Beatles plus Jesus total: 10,750,000
Wikipedia by itself: 11,200,000
Roll over, John Lennon, Wikipedia is more popular than Jesus and the Beatles combined.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales schrieb:
Roll over, John Lennon, Wikipedia is more popular than Jesus and the Beatles combined.
speaking of fun, we're getting close to the bizarre area of the Internet:
"Klaus Holoch" is the spokesman of Brockhaus (English audience: please read "Britannica" with such well thought quotes like
""Die Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie bietet geprüftes Wissen, auf das man sich hundertprozentig verlassen kann." Dies sei bei Wikipedia keinesfalls so, behauptet er. Deshalb könne man Wikipedia nicht mit Brockhaus vergleichen."
"Brockhaus is providing verified knowledge on which you can rely on at 100 per cent." This is not the case at wikipedia, he claims. Because of this, you can't compare Wikipedia with Brockhaus"
(I might have mentioned it before)
Okay, here's the new part:
google for "Klaus Holoch": 220 hits google for "Klaus Holoch" wikipedia: 115
(Last week, there was a news agency-dispatch from dpa about wikipedia and it contained this statement from Holoch, this has resulted in some increase of google result numbers. This is the first time with more than 50% wikipedia-related pages when searching for his name only)
Jimmy, you might consider to appoint him as the honoris causa PR-volunteer of the German wikipedia project. After all, according to the omniscient web/google, his work is more connected to wikipedia than to his employer.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
"Klaus Holoch" is the spokesman of Brockhaus (English audience: please read "Britannica" with such well thought quotes like
""Die Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie bietet geprüftes Wissen, auf das man sich hundertprozentig verlassen kann." Dies sei bei Wikipedia keinesfalls so, behauptet er. Deshalb könne man Wikipedia nicht mit Brockhaus vergleichen."
Is this the same chap that called Wikipedia an enterprise? :)
Timwi schrieb:
Is this the same chap that called Wikipedia an enterprise? :)
close :).
That was the editor of wissen.de (they still claim to be Europe's largest free knowledge base which I consider this anachronistic).
However, Klaus Holoch was the same "chap" that took the opportunity to have a 45 minutes-discussion on WDR state radio-5 with Magnus Manske about the ownership of knowledge.
And he was the same chap who asked for "peaceful coexistence" with wikipedia, according to Deutsche Welle TV.
"Ich denke, dass "Wikipedia" sich weiter entwickeln wird und seinen Platz findet. Aber ich bin auch ganz sicher, dass "Brockhaus.de" erfolgreich sein wird und dass wir uns dann schön nebeneinander bewegen."" http://www.dw-world.de/german/0,,1606_A_1128716_1_A,00.html
Interestingly, he mentions brockhaus.de and not their B2C-eContent-ePayment-eOutsource thing xipolis.net.
This could still be fun, depending on your sense of humor:
http://www.suse.de/cgi-bin/print_page_www.pl?NPSPath=/webredesign/htdocs/en/...
Mathias Schindler wrote:
"Klaus Holoch" is the spokesman of Brockhaus (English audience: please read "Britannica" with such well thought quotes like
"Brockhaus is providing verified knowledge on which you can rely on at 100 per cent." This is not the case at wikipedia, he claims. Because of this, you can't compare Wikipedia with Brockhaus"
Okay, here's the new part:
google for "Klaus Holoch": 220 hits google for "Klaus Holoch" wikipedia: 115
(Last week, there was a news agency-dispatch from dpa about wikipedia and it contained this statement from Holoch, this has resulted in some increase of google result numbers. This is the first time with more than 50% wikipedia-related pages when searching for his name only)
This only proves that bad publicity is often very good as long as the name is spelled correctly. The key words in his statement are "You can't compare..." What could possibly present a greater inspiration to making such a comparison.
Ec
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
This was cute.
In 1966, John Lennon caused a bit of a stir by saying that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus". I'm not an international rock star, so hopefully no one will notice if I post this link:
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Wikipedia&q2=Jesus&... and this one: http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Wikipedia&q2=Beatles&am...
Beatles 5,560,000 Jesus 5,190,000
Beatles plus Jesus total: 10,750,000
Wikipedia by itself: 11,200,000
Roll over, John Lennon, Wikipedia is more popular than Jesus and the Beatles combined.
From George Harrison:
My idea in "My Sweet Lord," because it sounded like a "pop song," was to sneak up on them a bit. The point was to have the people not offended by "Hallelujah," and by the time it gets to "Hare Krishna," they're already hooked, and their foot's tapping, and they're already singing along "Hallelujah," to kind of lull them into a sense of false security. And then suddenly it turns into "Hare Krishna," and they will all be singing that before they know what's happened, and they will think, "Hey, I thought I wasn't supposed to like Hare Krishna!"
See http://www.mantra-meditation.com/my-sweet-lord.html for the full text.
When you consider it "Wikipedia" could be substituted prosodically for "Hallelujah" or "Hare Krishna". :-)
Ec
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Beatles 5,560,000 Jesus 5,190,000 Wikipedia 11,200,000
Where does googlefight.com get these numbers from? If I just google for these words, I get:
Beatles 5,390,000 Jesus 22,700,000 Wikipedia 10,900,000
According to that, Wikipedia is twice as popular as the Beatles, but still way behind Jesus. :-p
Timwi
Also so fun numbers;
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/top30.html
The stats of the most popular search plugin for Mozilla.
Top 30 place 8 for wikipedia and going UP
Current top 10; http://mycroft.mozdev.org/index.html
5th place
I hope somebody is maintaining those plugins.
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Also so fun numbers;
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/top30.html
The stats of the most popular search plugin for Mozilla.
Top 30 place 8 for wikipedia and going UP
Current top 10; http://mycroft.mozdev.org/index.html
5th place
I hope somebody is maintaining those plugins.
I submitted a version for the Minnan Wikipedia a while ago. The ones I've tried (en, ja) work fine now that full-text search is working. Btw, I find it annoying and problematic that Mycroft uses national flags to represent languages.
~~~~
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org