3 ms·

I hear you. But it makes my head hurt to see Wikipedia listed before Google (I'm a Wikipedian). Much of the crud in Wikipedia articles is an example of "semanti

I hear you. But it makes my head hurt to see Wikipedia listed before Google (I'm a Wikipedian). Much of the crud in Wikipedia articles is an example of "semantic attacks on the Web" just like the fake "news" story on the hacked Twitter account.

codeulike 14y ago
But the fact that Wikipedia exists is amazing, right? Imagine if the main reference site on the web was corporate controlled. Actually, I've often wondered: Was it inevitable (due to the nature of the internet) that the primary reference site on the web would be open, free and wiki-style, or are we just incredibly lucky that that happened?
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Ten years ago, if someone had a not-completely-obvious question, they had to go to the library and spend at least an hour researching. That always blows my mind.
  - tokenadult 14y ago
    They still have to go to a library after reading the Wikipedia article, if they don't want to be misled.
  - eitland 14y ago
    For certain (history, science) topics Internet was usable more than 10 years ago. (1998 comes to mind.) I was a teenager back then and it all happened so gradually I didn't understand until later what I had witnessed. (Then came some dark years of webspam before Google. Web rings were a good way of navigating. : )
- DanBC 14y ago
  It'd be interesting to see how the future-people interpret the dominance of Wikipedia. I guess other people made mistakes. MS didn't think the Internet was important early enough; they didn't make Encarta available sensibly; MS was deeply unpopular with a sizable section of the population. Other people got stuck in a reference library mode - and thus they concentrated on selling DVDs to libraries rather than making access public. I will, grudgingly[1], admit that Wikipedia is amazing. Probably a Wonder of the World. [1] I actually hate it, and try to avoid it where possible. If I had the money I'd fork it and create a lower-cruft, more accurate, closed for edits, version. Every article would have a 3 sentence 'elevator pitch' style introduction. Sourcing would be fixed. And the focus would be on "accurate", not "verifiable".
  - codeulike 14y ago
    Imagine if a corporate controlled online encyclopedia has become dominant. It would probably be ad supported, with ads targeted to the subject the page covers. It would be so depressing, and make research feel like shopping. Looking up medical conditions would give you a faceful of snake-oil adverts.
  - pnathan 14y ago
    brittanica is remarkably good.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
youngerdryas 14y ago
Often my Google search leads me to a Wikipedia page, is there a browser extension that takes you to the Wiki page if it exists but otherwise dumps you to Google results? If not someone should write one because it would be convenient.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  in chrome at least, start typing "wiki" in the url bar (if it's a common site you go to), hit tab, and then your search term, it'll search and bring you to the wikipedia site. This works for most searchable sites you've recently visited, Amazon, youtube, ebay, etc.

codeulike 14y ago

But the fact that Wikipedia exists is amazing, right? Imagine if the main reference site on the web was corporate controlled. Actually, I've often wondered: Was it inevitable (due to the nature of the internet) that the primary reference site on the web would be open, free and wiki-style, or are we just incredibly lucky that that happened?

StavrosK 14y ago
Ten years ago, if someone had a not-completely-obvious question, they had to go to the library and spend at least an hour researching. That always blows my mind.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  They still have to go to a library after reading the Wikipedia article, if they don't want to be misled.
- eitland 14y ago
  For certain (history, science) topics Internet was usable more than 10 years ago. (1998 comes to mind.) I was a teenager back then and it all happened so gradually I didn't understand until later what I had witnessed. (Then came some dark years of webspam before Google. Web rings were a good way of navigating. : )
DanBC 14y ago
It'd be interesting to see how the future-people interpret the dominance of Wikipedia. I guess other people made mistakes. MS didn't think the Internet was important early enough; they didn't make Encarta available sensibly; MS was deeply unpopular with a sizable section of the population. Other people got stuck in a reference library mode - and thus they concentrated on selling DVDs to libraries rather than making access public. I will, grudgingly[1], admit that Wikipedia is amazing. Probably a Wonder of the World. [1] I actually hate it, and try to avoid it where possible. If I had the money I'd fork it and create a lower-cruft, more accurate, closed for edits, version. Every article would have a 3 sentence 'elevator pitch' style introduction. Sourcing would be fixed. And the focus would be on "accurate", not "verifiable".
- codeulike 14y ago
  Imagine if a corporate controlled online encyclopedia has become dominant. It would probably be ad supported, with ads targeted to the subject the page covers. It would be so depressing, and make research feel like shopping. Looking up medical conditions would give you a faceful of snake-oil adverts.
- pnathan 14y ago
  brittanica is remarkably good.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

youngerdryas 14y ago

Often my Google search leads me to a Wikipedia page, is there a browser extension that takes you to the Wiki page if it exists but otherwise dumps you to Google results? If not someone should write one because it would be convenient.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
in chrome at least, start typing "wiki" in the url bar (if it's a common site you go to), hit tab, and then your search term, it'll search and bring you to the wikipedia site. This works for most searchable sites you've recently visited, Amazon, youtube, ebay, etc.