3 ms·

I don't disagree with any of this, but it seems worth noting that Wikipedia wasn't significant when Google was first becoming huge. Google solved the problem of

I don't disagree with any of this, but it seems worth noting that Wikipedia wasn't significant when Google was first becoming huge. Google solved the problem of "where is this information?" by finding all the information, but Wikipedia gives an alternate solution by having all the information. My internet use would be vastly worse without Google, it's true. But these days, perhaps 90% of my Googling is optional - I already have a strong guess at which site will give me what I want, the search bar is just a faster route to get there. If I want Stack Overflow, or Wikipedia, or Genius, or Nationmaster, I already know that's where I want to go. When Google's top result answers my question via a site I've never been to, that's a huge win for Google. When they answer it via a Wikipedia link, well... I'd still give Google slot 1, but it's not as obvious as it was pre-Wikipedia. (To fact-check this comment, I Googled "Google" and "Wikipedia", to get to the Wikipedia page for each. Kind of telling.)

nickpsecurity 9y ago
That's a good analysis. One extra thing to consider with your model is Wikipedia may or may not be accurate on a topic. I find it's often correct on IT stuff but even that slips on occasion. When using it, I have to check the references and/or corroborate them seeing what turns up in Google. So, even then it's more like Wikipedia AND Google instead OR.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  This is a good point. I'm generally bullish on Wikipedia, for a lot of topics I don't even worry about cross-referencing. But the safest stuff is a mix of popular and objective (e.g. "who was in that movie again?"). For political, technical, or obscure topics that becomes a much tougher question. The political issue is obvious, but I'm surprised at how often I go into the weeds on something mathematical or simply unpopular and find that Wikipedia is off the mark. I wouldn't trust it for those topics without further Googling.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

That's a good analysis. One extra thing to consider with your model is Wikipedia may or may not be accurate on a topic. I find it's often correct on IT stuff but even that slips on occasion. When using it, I have to check the references and/or corroborate them seeing what turns up in Google. So, even then it's more like Wikipedia AND Google instead OR.

Bartweiss 9y ago
This is a good point. I'm generally bullish on Wikipedia, for a lot of topics I don't even worry about cross-referencing. But the safest stuff is a mix of popular and objective (e.g. "who was in that movie again?"). For political, technical, or obscure topics that becomes a much tougher question. The political issue is obvious, but I'm surprised at how often I go into the weeds on something mathematical or simply unpopular and find that Wikipedia is off the mark. I wouldn't trust it for those topics without further Googling.