4 ms·

Wikipedia has a Google search monopoly and this must STOP

Why is it that if I search for World War II for example the first hits are always Wikipedia? Google pushes Wikipedia systematically on top without merit I would argue. I also suspect that Google does not run Wikipedia through their ranking algorithm. Any opinions and insights would be welcome.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
visarga 7y ago
On the other hand many people expect Wikipedia to be the first hit on lots of topics.
- domnuprofesor 7y ago
  Google should provide the relevant results not what people expect.
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Wikipedia is a fairly reliable, even handed source on most subjects. A general search engine will always rank it highly...
    - domnuprofesor 7y ago
      Why not then list britannica.com or encyclopedia.com first? Britannica must be by all standards more reliable than Wikipedia. You cannot get around the fact that Wikipedia gets special treatment from Google.
      - yowza 7y ago
        It is what it is. It is what google think was the right approach. Other search engines might use a different approach you might want to try them.
      - reportgunner 7y ago
        Britannica is not free and not a non-profit. Wikipedia is completely free and is a non-profit. Also I got 3 popups 10 seconds after arriving to the page, no thanks ! I would argue that google got more popular thanks to Wikipedia and Wikipedia became widely used thanks to Google.
        domnuprofesor 7y ago
        so, not free websites or non-profit should count in the search ranking? This is an outrageous argument and I hope you can see how bad of an argument that is. https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II has one pop-up (can be easily blocked) and quality content. I agree with "I would argue that google got more popular thanks to Wikipedia and Wikipedia became widely used thanks to Google."
        reportgunner 7y ago
        >so, not free websites or non-profit should count in the search ranking? No. Free websites are generally more relevant since you don't have to pay any money to view content. Also it is evident that you know of britannica existence if you have purchased a membership. Why use google to search for articles on a site you subscribe to ? I still don't understand why you posted this thread ? Whom should do what to fix this ?
        domnuprofesor 7y ago
        I know of Britannica from two decades now. Britannica has free quality content online besides the paid premium. Google should rank that content accordingly. It seems you don't see the big picture here. Google artificially positioned Wikipedia in the top just because they liked the project and resonated with their values.
        reportgunner 7y ago
        >It seems you don't see the big picture here. I see and I agree with you 100% on that statement. What I don't see is what was the expectations behind submitting your post. Do you want us to stop using wikipedia now ? Or stop using google ? Should we sign a petition to google to change this ?
quirkafleeg3 7y ago
If I'm looking for general information about a subject, I want Wikipedia to be first
- domnuprofesor 7y ago
  What you want is a different matter than what Google should list first in the search results.
  - reportgunner 7y ago
    OP can you elaborate on what "should" be the first in the search result ?
    - domnuprofesor 7y ago
      wikipedia was given special treatment by google and this should have never happened. the first search result should be the one that scores highest in the ranking algorithm without partiality.
  - quirkafleeg3 7y ago
    point taken
jedberg 7y ago
Wikipedia has a pagerank of 8, which means a lot of people link back to it. Google only has a PR of 9 (as does reddit). Almost no site has a PR of 10. So wikipedia is considered pretty authoritative on a lot of stuff.
- domnuprofesor 7y ago
  Wikipedia was teleported to Google first page results from its inception. This helped a lot in building its PR.
reportgunner 7y ago
Bro first hits are always ads. I want ads to be removed and wikipedia to be first. I don't want to have 7 search bars for each website, I want to write "dementia" and have a wikipedia link to dementia explanation come up as the first result. We can have lengthy discussions about what Google should do but they don't really care about the outcome.
- domnuprofesor 7y ago
  I'm not talking about paid ads. I mean first organic results, those that go through the ranking algorithm. Again, what you want/expect is irrelevant. If you want wikipedia articles set your homepage to wikipedia and use their search bar.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > I want to write "dementia" and have a wikipedia link to dementia explanation come up as the first result. dementia wikipedia ...will work. If you're using DDG you can type !w dementia ...and it'll take you direct to the Wikipedia page.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

visarga 7y ago

On the other hand many people expect Wikipedia to be the first hit on lots of topics.

domnuprofesor 7y ago
Google should provide the relevant results not what people expect.
- mehhh 7y ago
  Wikipedia is a fairly reliable, even handed source on most subjects. A general search engine will always rank it highly...
  - domnuprofesor 7y ago
    Why not then list britannica.com or encyclopedia.com first? Britannica must be by all standards more reliable than Wikipedia. You cannot get around the fact that Wikipedia gets special treatment from Google.
    - yowza 7y ago
      It is what it is. It is what google think was the right approach. Other search engines might use a different approach you might want to try them.
    - reportgunner 7y ago
      Britannica is not free and not a non-profit. Wikipedia is completely free and is a non-profit. Also I got 3 popups 10 seconds after arriving to the page, no thanks ! I would argue that google got more popular thanks to Wikipedia and Wikipedia became widely used thanks to Google.
      - domnuprofesor 7y ago
        so, not free websites or non-profit should count in the search ranking? This is an outrageous argument and I hope you can see how bad of an argument that is. https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II has one pop-up (can be easily blocked) and quality content. I agree with "I would argue that google got more popular thanks to Wikipedia and Wikipedia became widely used thanks to Google."
        reportgunner 7y ago
        >so, not free websites or non-profit should count in the search ranking? No. Free websites are generally more relevant since you don't have to pay any money to view content. Also it is evident that you know of britannica existence if you have purchased a membership. Why use google to search for articles on a site you subscribe to ? I still don't understand why you posted this thread ? Whom should do what to fix this ?
        domnuprofesor 7y ago
        I know of Britannica from two decades now. Britannica has free quality content online besides the paid premium. Google should rank that content accordingly. It seems you don't see the big picture here. Google artificially positioned Wikipedia in the top just because they liked the project and resonated with their values.
        reportgunner 7y ago
        >It seems you don't see the big picture here. I see and I agree with you 100% on that statement. What I don't see is what was the expectations behind submitting your post. Do you want us to stop using wikipedia now ? Or stop using google ? Should we sign a petition to google to change this ?

quirkafleeg3 7y ago

If I'm looking for general information about a subject, I want Wikipedia to be first

domnuprofesor 7y ago
What you want is a different matter than what Google should list first in the search results.
- reportgunner 7y ago
  OP can you elaborate on what "should" be the first in the search result ?
  - domnuprofesor 7y ago
    wikipedia was given special treatment by google and this should have never happened. the first search result should be the one that scores highest in the ranking algorithm without partiality.
- quirkafleeg3 7y ago
  point taken

jedberg 7y ago

Wikipedia has a pagerank of 8, which means a lot of people link back to it. Google only has a PR of 9 (as does reddit). Almost no site has a PR of 10. So wikipedia is considered pretty authoritative on a lot of stuff.

domnuprofesor 7y ago
Wikipedia was teleported to Google first page results from its inception. This helped a lot in building its PR.

reportgunner 7y ago

Bro first hits are always ads. I want ads to be removed and wikipedia to be first. I don't want to have 7 search bars for each website, I want to write "dementia" and have a wikipedia link to dementia explanation come up as the first result. We can have lengthy discussions about what Google should do but they don't really care about the outcome.

domnuprofesor 7y ago
I'm not talking about paid ads. I mean first organic results, those that go through the ranking algorithm. Again, what you want/expect is irrelevant. If you want wikipedia articles set your homepage to wikipedia and use their search bar.
DanBC 7y ago
> I want to write "dementia" and have a wikipedia link to dementia explanation come up as the first result. dementia wikipedia ...will work. If you're using DDG you can type !w dementia ...and it'll take you direct to the Wikipedia page.