7 ms·

Wikipedia Is Steadily Losing Google Traffic

21 points by thenomad 11y ago

legitster 11y ago
Google displays their own Answer box over Wikipedia, they display their own reviews instead of Yelp, they display their own maps over anyone else's directions. Is anyone else getting the feeling that Google is becoming a hostile platform for other businesses?
- et2o 11y ago
  The EU!
- presty 11y ago
  what's interesting is that the answer box is usually filled with wikipedia data
woodymcpecks 11y ago
Regardless of what Google is doing, it seems like just another sign that the internet is becoming more and more a new generation of cable TV than a platform for universal knowledge. And it's becoming it with thunderous applause...
krigi 11y ago
A professor at Harvard, Ben Edelman, has been all over this for several years. He catalogues the anticompetitive practices of Google and other tech companies. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=417579 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=417579
thrownaway2424 11y ago
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Its mission is not to funnel traffic to intermediaries who can serve ads and skim a penny off the world's hunger for information. If the question gets answered without clicking through to wikipedia, that's better for everybody, including Wikimedia who don't have to pay to serve the query.
- t0mbstone 11y ago
  Wikipedia doesn't show ads.
  - rimantas 11y ago
    And I think he got Wikipedia and Google mixed up :).
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    That's debatable, depending on how you feel about Yet Another Urgent Appeal From Jimmy Wales, or the difference between advertising and NPR pledge drives.
- codezero 11y ago
  This sounds good in practice, but most web infrastructures don't pay per page-load. It's possible to do this to some extent, but typically, a number of servers sit un-utilized, but paid for nonetheless. Also, Google displays their own ads in these results, so it's not like visitors who may go to a site with ads are somehow relieved of this annoyance by using Google.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Its mission is not to funnel traffic to intermediaries There's a difference between organizing the world's information, and becoming the source of the world's information. Traditionally Google has been a card catalog—you want to find something, they'll tell you where to find it. Now they're trying to become the encyclopedia. > that's better for everybody, including Wikimedia who don't have to pay to serve the query If you're a site that makes money via serving webpages, then preventing you from serving those web pages costs money, not saves money.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    The mere existence of some site that serves an answer should not prevent another site from simply giving the answer itself, instead of a referral to the other place.
Nadya 11y ago
As mentioned in the comments of the article: What part of the lost traffic is people figuring out they can search Wikipedia directly? I've noticed older people are more likely to search Google for Youtube videos than they are to search Youtube. Same goes for trying to search other sites, they'll search for something and include "wikipedia" in the query. The younger ones I've noticed (really small sample size of "my siblings and their friends") actually search on Wikipedia or Youtube. Until I started using keywords to search sites directly, I was guilty of the former method myself.
- justlurkin 11y ago
  I'm partial to the former method for speed, but you almost always need to dive into the source to understand the "answer" provided. A somewhat relevant example is typing in a certain spelling of something to check correctness, and the first results are confirming your spelling, right or wrong. You click into the results, and you get "x, a common mispelling for y". Moral of the story, Google is great for finding things fast, but make sure you validate your results against multiple sources.
redml 11y ago
I'd maybe care if Wikipedia was a reliable source of unbiased information. It isn't. All kinds of extremist and special interest groups edit it to their own desires.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  You're absolutely right -- and that needs to die in a fire -- but studies consistently show that Wikipedia contains generally accurate information. What we need is some way to automate the process of exposing shill editors. I would pay good money for a bullshit detector.

21 points by thenomad 11y ago

Google displays their own Answer box over Wikipedia, they display their own reviews instead of Yelp, they display their own maps over anyone else's directions. Is anyone else getting the feeling that Google is becoming a hostile platform for other businesses?

et2o 11y ago
The EU!
presty 11y ago
what's interesting is that the answer box is usually filled with wikipedia data

woodymcpecks 11y ago

Regardless of what Google is doing, it seems like just another sign that the internet is becoming more and more a new generation of cable TV than a platform for universal knowledge. And it's becoming it with thunderous applause...

krigi 11y ago

A professor at Harvard, Ben Edelman, has been all over this for several years. He catalogues the anticompetitive practices of Google and other tech companies. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=417579 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=417579

thrownaway2424 11y ago

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Its mission is not to funnel traffic to intermediaries who can serve ads and skim a penny off the world's hunger for information. If the question gets answered without clicking through to wikipedia, that's better for everybody, including Wikimedia who don't have to pay to serve the query.

t0mbstone 11y ago
Wikipedia doesn't show ads.
- rimantas 11y ago
  And I think he got Wikipedia and Google mixed up :).
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  That's debatable, depending on how you feel about Yet Another Urgent Appeal From Jimmy Wales, or the difference between advertising and NPR pledge drives.
codezero 11y ago
This sounds good in practice, but most web infrastructures don't pay per page-load. It's possible to do this to some extent, but typically, a number of servers sit un-utilized, but paid for nonetheless. Also, Google displays their own ads in these results, so it's not like visitors who may go to a site with ads are somehow relieved of this annoyance by using Google.
mcphage 11y ago
> Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Its mission is not to funnel traffic to intermediaries There's a difference between organizing the world's information, and becoming the source of the world's information. Traditionally Google has been a card catalog—you want to find something, they'll tell you where to find it. Now they're trying to become the encyclopedia. > that's better for everybody, including Wikimedia who don't have to pay to serve the query If you're a site that makes money via serving webpages, then preventing you from serving those web pages costs money, not saves money.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  The mere existence of some site that serves an answer should not prevent another site from simply giving the answer itself, instead of a referral to the other place.

Nadya 11y ago

As mentioned in the comments of the article: What part of the lost traffic is people figuring out they can search Wikipedia directly? I've noticed older people are more likely to search Google for Youtube videos than they are to search Youtube. Same goes for trying to search other sites, they'll search for something and include "wikipedia" in the query. The younger ones I've noticed (really small sample size of "my siblings and their friends") actually search on Wikipedia or Youtube. Until I started using keywords to search sites directly, I was guilty of the former method myself.

justlurkin 11y ago
I'm partial to the former method for speed, but you almost always need to dive into the source to understand the "answer" provided. A somewhat relevant example is typing in a certain spelling of something to check correctness, and the first results are confirming your spelling, right or wrong. You click into the results, and you get "x, a common mispelling for y". Moral of the story, Google is great for finding things fast, but make sure you validate your results against multiple sources.

redml 11y ago

I'd maybe care if Wikipedia was a reliable source of unbiased information. It isn't. All kinds of extremist and special interest groups edit it to their own desires.

fapjacks 11y ago
You're absolutely right -- and that needs to die in a fire -- but studies consistently show that Wikipedia contains generally accurate information. What we need is some way to automate the process of exposing shill editors. I would pay good money for a bullshit detector.