JoshuaZ goes after Boothroyd BLP, Plots new bio in user Options

[Somey]

My question is: Why does Google give such preferential attention to Wikipedia in the first place?

There's a good explanation here, from Dec. 2007 by Andrew Orlowski. Essentially, blogspammers are mostly to blame, along with bad timing.

[Floydsvoid]

There's a good explanation here, from Dec. 2007 by Andrew Orlowski. Essentially, blogspammers are mostly to blame, along with bad timing.

Ahh, thanks for restoring my faithlessness in humanity

[jayvdb]

Has anyone noticed that Fys is still an admin on WQ?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Template:List_of_admins

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Fys

Yea, he still is. Maybe they will use the "vote of confidence" mechanism imported from Wikisource for Poetlister. There is a lot of interesting interaction there. I agree with what Fys is saying there as a general principle, and have said the same over on Wikisource. Poetlister is not a typical case.

[A User]

My question is: Why does Google give such preferential attention to Wikipedia in the first place?

There's a good explanation here, from Dec. 2007 by Andrew Orlowski. Essentially, blogspammers are mostly to blame, along with bad timing.

Thanks somey. Knol has been around for a few months now and Google must be disappointed in it. It still hasn't in any shape or form been able to overtake, let alone challenge, the dominance of wikipedia. Other pedias such as citizendium, mwb etc still rank lowly in search results, so the status quo has continued, and looks like continuing for some years.

[thekohser]

Thanks somey. Knol has been around for a few months now and Google must be disappointed in it. It still hasn't in any shape or form been able to overtake, let alone challenge, the dominance of wikipedia. Other pedias such as citizendium, mwb etc still rank lowly in search results, so the status quo has continued, and looks like continuing for some years.

On the important subjects, though, Wikipedia Review actually outranks Wikipedia in the search results.

[sbrown]

On the important subjects, though, Wikipedia Review actually outranks Wikipedia in the search results.

Even Google cant find something on wikipeida if its not allowed to be there!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

My question is: Why does Google give such preferential attention to Wikipedia in the first place?

There's a good explanation here, from Dec. 2007 by Andrew Orlowski. Essentially, blogspammers are mostly to blame, along with bad timing.

This is an exceptionally succinct and truthful history of the project:

The Wiki "democracy" - where the public votes for the truth - is now little more than a flimsy cover story used for its fund-raising efforts. Topics are now tightly controlled by a 14-year-old you've never heard of, who has risen to the top of the social backstabbing by seeing off rival "editors", by forming cliques and drinking huge amounts of Red Bull. This is truly survival of the fittest.

[sbrown]

There is a lot of interesting interaction there.

Hold on are you saying that Fys colluded with another sockpuppetter? Theres no evidence there. He supported two RFAs and so did lots of people. He said that WP and WQ are different and independent places and so did a lot of people. Next youll be accusing Aphaia.


This post has been edited by sbrown: Thu 18th June 2009, 8:10pm

[The Joy]

There is a lot of interesting interaction there.

Hold on are you saying that Fys colluded with another sockpuppetter? Theres no evidence there. He supported two RFAs and so did lots of people. He said that WP and WQ are different and independent places and so did a lot of people. Next youll be accusing Aphaia.

WQ is a very whacky place, even by Wikipedian standards. The community there is so small that everyone pretty much gets along with and trusts everyone. Fys wasn't the only one that trusted Poetlister, Cato, etc. WQ also is very territorial and will not tolerate Wikipedians interfering in their processes. So even if Fys is found to have colluded with PL, no one's going to do anything about it unless the Foundation or prominent people on the Meta Wikipedia convince WQ to act.

Also everyone on Wikipedia and its sister projects "collude" with sockpuppeteers all the time. You just don't always know it.

[jayvdb]

There is a lot of interesting interaction there.

Hold on are you saying that Fys colluded with another sockpuppetter? Theres no evidence there. He supported two RFAs and so did lots of people. He said that WP and WQ are different and independent places and so did a lot of people. Next youll be accusing Aphaia.

I am not saying anything of the sort. That would be hypocritical given the rest of my comment where I said that I agreed with what Fys was saying, and given that I nominated Poetlister for adminship on Wikisource (..and dont regret it either). Poetlister is even allowed back to Wikisource. Obviously we would expect that Poetlister used only one account if they returned, but multiple accounts doesn't help anyone there as the concept of "consensus" is rarely relied upon.

As The Joy points out, this is just another problem with Wikiquote. I haven't been able to work out what is the underlying cause of the problems with that project, because there are parallels between its structure and community with that of the other small projects. There are a few good people on Wikiquote, so hopefully they can pull it together, however it seems that they are outnumbered. The simplest solution is to move it to Wikia, or /dev/null. Important quotes can be compiled as a "Wikibook" of quotes. No need for a separate project.

[CharlotteWebb]

multiple accounts doesn't help anyone [at wikisource] as the concept of "consensus" is rarely relied upon.

Interesting. I've never contributed to Wikisource (or Wikiquote for that matter) so I don't know how this works. However I have often wondered what it would take for Wikipedia (and other projects) to adopt a robust just-say-no-to-groupthink philosophy.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Fri 19th June 2009, 5:27pm

[sbrown]

The community there is so small that everyone pretty much gets along with and trusts everyone. Fys wasn't the only one that trusted Poetlister, Cato, etc.

Conversely of course everyone must have trusted Fys.

As The Joy points out, this is just another problem with Wikiquote. I haven't been able to work out what is the underlying cause of the problems with that project, because there are parallels between its structure and community with that of the other small projects.

Ive been involved with some small wikimedia projects. My guess based on only a quick look is theres no real dynamic leader on English WQ who knows how to run things. On a small project you need one or two. If (butter up) they made Somey an admin there it would be much better.