4 ms·

I feel like wikipedia killed the web in a way. Anytime you search for something 95% of the time wikipedia is the first result and thus 99% of the time it is I

by theklub 11y ago

I feel like wikipedia killed the web in a way. Anytime you search for something 95% of the time wikipedia is the first result and thus 99% of the time it is I go to it for information. What websites or innovations have we missed out on because of this?

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Maybe the encyclopedias would have developed micropayments? Or maybe they would have just gone for a traditional expensive paywall approach and information would have been denied to the masses?
- theklub 11y ago
  Well there is no way that information wouldn't have gotten out. For the sake of argument I'm merely pointing out that having one website dominate as a source of information may have hurt the web in general.
BatFastard 11y ago
Indeed, it's too bad that libraries were created as well. Just think of how many other knowledge sharing techniques would have been developed in its place. I know some of the other contenders were "smoke signals", "bird whistles", the list would be longer but I refuse to accept readily accessible, free sources of knowledge. And the smoke signals have been strangely quiet as of late.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  In a library you get Bill O'Reilly and Howard Zinn and everyone in between. But on Wikipedia, you get the loudest and most obsessive voice.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Yeah.. Wiki's systemic culture problems have chased off a number of editors. The own admins don't even follow the site's rules when its convenient for them not to. This is not a matter of opinion. One such rule is that there is a procedure to go through for deleting pages - I've personally been victim to a now-ex admin who killed a page I was working on, completely bypassing the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place. (Said admin was later kicked off the site for bot editing without approval, but not for ignoring deletion procedure.) The site's still quite valuable as long as you avoid politically charged topics (and run, don't walk, from the talk pages), but they are open to being forked if this continues.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Wikipedia is as things should be. Consider why you go to it 99 out of 100 times. It's not just because it usually shows up first in Google. It's because you know that all the other results suck.
rgovind 11y ago
It is a limitation of your search engine, not of wikipedia
niutech 11y ago
Definitely Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com http://www.britannica.com) and Microsoft Encarta used to be much more popular.

by theklub 11y ago

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Maybe the encyclopedias would have developed micropayments? Or maybe they would have just gone for a traditional expensive paywall approach and information would have been denied to the masses?

theklub 11y ago
Well there is no way that information wouldn't have gotten out. For the sake of argument I'm merely pointing out that having one website dominate as a source of information may have hurt the web in general.

BatFastard 11y ago

Indeed, it's too bad that libraries were created as well. Just think of how many other knowledge sharing techniques would have been developed in its place. I know some of the other contenders were "smoke signals", "bird whistles", the list would be longer but I refuse to accept readily accessible, free sources of knowledge. And the smoke signals have been strangely quiet as of late.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
HarryHirsch 11y ago
In a library you get Bill O'Reilly and Howard Zinn and everyone in between. But on Wikipedia, you get the loudest and most obsessive voice.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Yeah.. Wiki's systemic culture problems have chased off a number of editors. The own admins don't even follow the site's rules when its convenient for them not to. This is not a matter of opinion. One such rule is that there is a procedure to go through for deleting pages - I've personally been victim to a now-ex admin who killed a page I was working on, completely bypassing the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place. (Said admin was later kicked off the site for bot editing without approval, but not for ignoring deletion procedure.) The site's still quite valuable as long as you avoid politically charged topics (and run, don't walk, from the talk pages), but they are open to being forked if this continues.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Wikipedia is as things should be. Consider why you go to it 99 out of 100 times. It's not just because it usually shows up first in Google. It's because you know that all the other results suck.

rgovind 11y ago

It is a limitation of your search engine, not of wikipedia

niutech 11y ago

Definitely Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com http://www.britannica.com) and Microsoft Encarta used to be much more popular.