4 ms·
Last I recall, Google was one of the main contributors to wikipedia, wikipedia allows Google to do things Google can't. But if the US state, foundations or pro
by joe_the_user 6y ago
Last I recall, Google was one of the main contributors to wikipedia, wikipedia allows Google to do things Google can't.
But if the US state, foundations or provide donations could create a "non-partisan" search engine, they don't need to seize the Google search to do that. They could just launch it.
I would note that a lot of Google's activities involves foiling SEO. Sure, they allow it too but if Google's search criteria was a fixed target, 100% of the results would be garbage spam. A lot of what Google does now is bad but the company is still a wall against a vast sea of worse. Most criticisms of "big tech" doesn't take into account that the troll/spam/SEO complex exists independently from these companies - sure, this complex is a product of how these companies operate but it's also a product of how things have to work in the Internet and frightfully enough, the cost of doing involves the cost of beating this complex back (establishing boundaries, some of which are nasty compromises) no matter who's in running the connections. And where does this money come from?
- ricardo81 6y agoI'd say the relationship between Wikipedia and Google is symbiotic, at least for now. They collaborated on merging the Wikidata dataset and Google's Knowledge Graph, so now the entities can be connected. Google gets the benefit of their dataset for their knowledge boxes. You can see the difference in the source code of searches looking at the entity ids, /g/ is Google's own data and /w/ is wikidata sourced. I see the relationship Google has with Wikipedia similar to the one it had with DMOZ. I imagine at some point in the future that Google will see them as surplus to requirements, though not quite sure how they replace 5 million volunteer editors economically.