[Wikipedia-l] Parasitic behaviour. We loose more than money by it. <- I highly doubt that.

Mathias Schindler neubau at presroi.de
Mon Apr 12 06:55:26 UTC 2004

Erik Zachte schrieb:
> I know this is not new, but I'm rather pissed off to see Google returns
> several commercial sites featuring all Wikipedia articles on a request
> explicitly specifying "Wikipedia" as search term, and on top of the real
> thing.


> I know GDFL is very permissive, but is there nothing we can do about this?

Last year, I played a lot with google's pagerank and the way new pages 
find their way into the index.

One of the monst important factors in the PageRank formula is freshness. 
If I copy a page from the source web site which is already in the google 
index, I have a certain chance to get ahead of if - for some time.

After a while, the ratio of age will balance and other factors (the 
global pagerank of a site, and it's update frequency) will catch up.

So the answer is time. Most pages won't stay ahead of wikipedia.org for 
long time - If the other comply to the license, they have to link to us, 
which is boosting wikipedia.org.

So in the long term (and that's what wikipedia is certainly good at: 
deep breath) we gain from all the parasits (which appears to me as a POV 

By the way: Noone is searching for "wikipedia rembrand" if he doesn't 
know wikipedia yet. I use to use google as a full text search engine for 
wikipedia as long as we can't provide this yet by ourself.

Our aim is to get to position 1 for the search term "rembrand" and all 
the other lemmata which is a project for ages. Under these condiditions 
we can surely afford to let other sites to provide the wikipedia content 
in a GFDL compliant way.


nach uns der synflood.

More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list