6 ms·
They don't need to solve that problem. Lots of things cannabilise on others without needing to pay them back to be viable. Wikipedia is really just a collection
by adammarples 4y ago
They don't need to solve that problem. Lots of things cannabilise on others without needing to pay them back to be viable. Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material and does not seek to redress the balance. Google is a sophisticated filter for sources, it doesn't need to pay anything back to them to provide value for the searcher. Same with chatgpt, it filters and transforms its source material but owes nothing in return. News will still be published, data will still be generated at scale.
- brigandish 4y ago> Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material And yet it provides references and attribution where possible most of the time.
- zone411 4y ago...which do nothing for the websites that had the original content.
- acdha 4y agoThis is the opposite of true in my experience: if you run a content-heavy site, Wikipedia is going to be one of your top traffic sources — especially for time on site since the visitors who arrive tend to have a very low bounce rate.
- zone411 4y agoLook at my profile, I own content-heavy sites and have for many years. I can show you logs - Wikipedia does virtually nothing. And the content of my sites has been regurgitated by Wikipedia thousands of times.
- flakeoil 4y agoIt maybe doesn't drive much traffic directly from Wikipedia, but you might have a higher SEO rank when people search in google for whatever your sites are about. Thanks to the links from Wikipedia.
- lofaszvanitt 4y agoWhich are tagged with ugc or nofollow :DD. You have to realise that the current model is based on outrageous theft of people's hard work.
- zone411 4y agoIf you view the source of any Wikipedia page, they purposefully include "nofollow" tags, so Google ignores these links!
- flakeoil 4y ago"nofollow" or not, it does not mean that search engines do not take that into account. They maybe don't scan the linked site there and then, but I would be surprised if they did not take note of that someone linked to it.
- acdha 4y agoAll I can say is that my experience has been very different. Wikipedia editors have been very good at citing our primary sources.
- zone411 4y agoI mean my sites are cited over a thousand of times, but it only makes sense: a tiny percentage of visitors who view the Wikipedia page even reach the bottom of the page and then click on one of the links. And there is no benefit in terms of Google rankings.
- moneywoes 4y agoAre you concerned about all your data being scraped and getting directed for references by chat bots? How would that affect your monetization?