It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wikipedia To Take On Google And Yahoo

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 06:23 PM
Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia is planning to launch a search engine that will leverage the user driven model that has contributed to the success of Wikipedia. The search engine will be launched with financial backing from Amazon and a handful of other technology companies. Profit will be generated with advertising. According to Wales conventional search engines algorithms lack efficacy. Also computers are bad at making judgments, such as this page is good, this page is bad.
The Wikia corporation plans to launch the search engine with financial backing from online retailer Amazon (some sites are erroneously reporting that Amazon is involved in the development process, but please note that they are just providing financial resources for Wikia at this point) and a handful of other technology companies, but Wales hopes to generate profit from the service with advertising. In an interview with the Times Online, Wales says that "the revenue model for search is advertising," a truism demonstrated by competitors Google and Yahoo. Does Wikia have what it takes to beat the best at their own game? Wales is hoping that the reputation of Wikipedia and the transparency of the user-driven approach will be enough to attract users.

According to Wales, conventional search-engine ranking algorithms lack the efficacy of human intervention. "Essentially, if you consider one of the basic tasks of a search engine, it is to make a decision: 'this page is good, this page sucks'," says Wales, "Computers are notoriously bad at making such judgments, so algorithmic search has to go about it in a roundabout way." Wales also complains about poor results from mainstream search engines, commenting: "Google is very good at many types of search, but in many instances it produces nothing but spam and useless crap."

Although many consider Wikipedia to be a useful tool, Wales himself is one of many who insist that the web-based community encyclopedia shouldn't be treated as an authoritative source. The quality and accuracy of Wikipedia content has been questioned on numerous occasions and the site has stirred up controversy more than a few times in the past. Most Wikipedia contributors have seen edit wars and outright manipulation transpire even within articles that don't address controversial topics. A prank by television comedian Stephen Colbert, for instance, led to mass vandalism earlier this year. When one considers the competitive advantages of high search engine placement and the growing number of search engine "optimization" firms that specialize in improving a site's page rank, one begins to wonder how Wikia plans to prevent the system from being exploited.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I am mostly sure that everyone around hear has heard of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been talked about hear a fair amount. There is a lot of good information there and a lot of the information has been questioned. With this new search engine relevance will be marked by the user. Good ranking bad ranking is what the search engine will look for. For those of you who have used web based rankings on products before you have probably questioned the rankings before. So now this same ranking system will be used with a search engine. Think if people started putting false rankings on web pages. Or for the extreme what if there was a web page that say was embarrassing to the government, or a corporation. The entity in question could put thousands of negative rankings on the page in questions so the search engine would not find it a useful page. So will this user supported search engine be good for the user, or will it be yet another way for the government to control what information we have access to?

Related News Links:

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:47 PM
Excellent find.

And I'm glad to hear it. Yahoo is useless for anything controversial, and it sure seems like Google censors too. Maybe a little competition in ye olde marketplace will benefit conspiracy theorists and other truthseekers.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:17 AM
This is great new's Ive relied on Wikipedia for soo many different thing's, School project's,My Own personall interest's and of course to settle drinking bet's haha

But anyways, Does anybody know how google and yahoo are taking this?

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:47 AM
I wish someone could instead work on a serious competitor to windows OS instead. Google could do it, actually there are rumours, just, it, 'google os'.

I tried Linux, too geeky, and it doesn't like my MOBO anyway.

Do we need another search engine?

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:52 AM
Google will probably end up serving advertising to them eventually.
This search engine may be OS but it isn't non-profit. Amazon is an investor in the new for-profit arm of If this improves search results we could see the major search engines bending over backwards to help it along. Better search results benefits everyone who depends on the net. I do question how much better this will be though as everyone knows that human driven endeavors are just as prone or even more vulnerable to people who will go out of their way to deliberately game the system for their own selfish purposes at the expense of the rest. Now that real money from Search and Contextual Advertising is on the table, all the SEO's will be working overtime to figure out ways to capitalize on it.

I tried Linux, too geeky, and it doesn't like my MOBO anyway.

Linux isn't a signle operating system. Some are harder to setup then others. Ubuntu seems to be the easiest one to install and maintain. Gentoo seem to be the most flexible.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by sardion2000]

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 04:55 AM
All power to wikipedia as i have VERY frequently realised that after dozens of hours of research on relatively obscure pages the conclusions ( based frequently on open disagreement with well established perception) i came to were already contained in a wiki article! When i first visited wiki articles 2 and half years ago i was obviously as skeptical as most but since then i have arrived at the conclusion that collaborative research, and good old heated debate, can in fact result in a great platform from which to launch your own more specific research efforts.


posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by soficrow
Excellent find.

And I'm glad to hear it. Yahoo is useless for anything controversial, and it sure seems like Google censors too.

wow thanks a bunch! Definitely high praise. And I do hope it will benefit us all also. Despite the potential for it being used for deception.

Would you believe I almost did not think this worthy of ATSNN?

[edit on 27-12-2006 by RedGolem]

new topics

top topics


log in