Once again Wikipedia is getting buzz from educators and marketers alike.
Linda O’Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs.
She urges people to “Just Say No.”
The Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School librarian hasn’t been a fan of the online encyclopedia for years. This fall, she decided it was time to make others at her school aware of the Web site’s pitfalls.
She put up a sign saying “Just Say ‘No’ to Wikipedia” over the computers in the school library.
Specifically the teachers and librarians sited two arguments to the reason for limiting access to and disallow the use as a resource:
- Errors
- Not a Primary Resource
From (at least one) marketing perspective, it based upon the fact that Wikipedia can (and is) edited by anyone, and that the primary reason for the it’s success is traffic from Google. Wikipedia does rank extremely well in Google SERPs, consistently appearing on the first page of results. It is true that there are many marketers that exploit the value that Google gives the wiki.
I’ll say it again – Google doesn’t care about you. The only thing they care about is serving ads – the more targeted the better. And as long as all the mildly nutty, essentially benevolent, little do-gooding Wikipedians think that their 26,000 donations “to-date” are going to help them spread Wikipedia goodness all throughout Chad and the Ivory Coast, then we can thank them for helping Google to better “serve” (read: game) us.
Aside from a conspiracy theory that Google is engaging in some social engineering experiment, I think that there is a much more important questions:
“Is Wikipedia really a valuable resource?” – Absolutely
“Is Wikipedia an authority?” – Absolutely Not
Yes, Wikipedia may point you in the right direction for a search for specific information, but contrary to Google SERPs, it is not the authority rather a culmination of all of the opinions of the authors. This is the primary reason that I refer to it as a blog, just like the one you are reading from, it is an opinion from the author. Just like any blog, anyone can edit the content of it that is a member, but unlike most, Wikipedia allows everyone to be an author.
In my opinion, Wikipedia is a collection of perceptions and opinions based upon other resources.
Agree or don’t, feel free make your opinions and perceptions known!
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Pitfall, followed the link back, thanks.
All your points are valid, though I must emphasize that I disagree that the “social engineering” aspect is a conspiracy theory and, therefore, that there’s points more important than that.
Google is not a person; nor a group of people; nor a simple business. It’s clearly evolved into a corporate entity. I don’t want to presume you haven’t studied the nature of corporate entities but, like ANY entities, they follow the rules of “the game” at their level… and not ours.
“Animal Trackers” don’t speculate. They’re trained to spot tracks… in the sand, on tree bark, in mud, and so on. Then they can reasonably deduce the nature of the animal and it’s known psychology.
It is possible to track corporate entities in a similar manner. Their behaviors and habits studied and, ultimately, their real goals deduced.
They start off nice enough to survive their growing pains phase but once they get enough power, they, like any other creature, do what they have to do to both defend and maintain their hold on power.
Google’s propping up Wikipedia has got to be one of the most incredible, clear-cut, examples of this I have seen in a long time.
I think the only phrase more insidious than “Do No Evil” was found over the gates of Auschwitz. It read, “Work Will Set You Free”… they both sound pretty nice, don’t they?
But hindsight is 20/20… and those who forget their pasts are doomed to repeat them.
Just wait til you see what Google has up its sleeve next. We’re like the story of the slowly cooked frogs.
But great article… it does ask some important questions.
Best regards,
Sam
I feel Google God is trying to make money and not trying to get the best information the the consumer (searcher users). Did you know Google is lowering PR for using text Link Ads. Yeah crazy huh well they are building the program using PDF type ads. Well just a warning but Wikipedia is not a good source but it seems my search always will end up there in the beginning but it never ends there = ) Happy blogging
Sam,
Thank you for your perspective and your comment. I do agree that Google is studying the data about you, me and everyone that uses their services. I can even see that Wikipedia is a great match, because they don’t sell anything and it doesn’t get in the way of them utilizing their marketing power to offer additional revenue generating results, namely ads.
I can even wrap my mind around the idea that Google is trying to understand users to enable them to market to them better, actually I absolutely agree. BUT (big but), I do the same thing on a smaller scale. I am constantly trying to understand my visitors’ behavior to provide a better experience so they visit again, more frequently or send others my way. It is a type of behavior engineering and it is not on the scale of Google, but similar just the same.
As I said in the article I don’t think that Google is providing the best result of a search query if it returns Wikipedia because it is not the authority!
I like the way Sam puts things regarding Google. We are that frog in the boiling pot. No one will know until it is too late. Priceless analogy I think.
Wikipedia doesnt have it’s uses but more and more people realize how biased it is. It is just the nature of anything that is open to anyone adjusting. I love that tool that that kid developed that shows the revisions to Wikipedia articles and the originating IP addresses. Funny I think how Microsoft, the CIA and so many more in large organizations are using Wikipedia to skew public opinion. It is what is deleted just as much as what is changed and published.
Overall though I admit I still like Wikipedia and over time I think it can get better and be respected more.
Chad,
I would say that Wikipedia is not an authority, but it is a great place to start a search for more information. I am glad to hear it is not the destination, but it can be a good starting point.
As far as the recent PageRank updates, it was considered by Google as being the right thing to do. They gave a fictitious value for web pages and then they took it away… Oh well. As far as I can see, it is something to keep the algo chasers at bay!
Michael,
Thanks for the comment. As far as the bias of Wikipedia… of course it is, because it is written by fallible people like you and me and we all can be biased, whether we realize it or not.
True Pittfall, but so is Brittanica and other encyclopedias. Everything is written by us mere mortals until the day that we really get some super intelligent A.I. to do our research and information processing. Even then though the programmers of that A.I. will have their views in there somewhere.
Michael,
Thanks for the follow up. Everything is based upon perception, A.I., history, everything.