Google vs. Wikipedia

[Asmodean]

What do you use when you are looking for specific information on the 'Net?

I find myself using Wikipedia more and more. The information that is presented there is easily accessible, mostly comprehensive, and the range of information is of quite a large scope.

Of course, if I can't that easily define what I am looking for, I still use Google, but within well defined terms, I think Google has actually met it's match with Wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia a competitor to Google, or do they complement eachother? What do you think?

Asmodean

[Wiglaf]

Wikipedia in no way competes with Google.

[Solver]

They aren't competitors in any way.

Most importantly, Wikipedia has information. Google has none - Google merely finds it elsewhere. Now, Wikipedia is very good if yu want to look up general information on a person, some mathematical concept, country or whatnot. However, even with well-defined terms, there's a lot you can't find on Wikipedia that you need Google for. I frequently use Google to find code examples on how to accomplish something, or reference material for some programming API - that's exclusively Google stuff.

[Zopperoni]

Yea, Wiki is really targeted at some specific topic... Google is way wider... you use Google also for stuff like "Canon camera reviews" or "market share report 2006".

[b etor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Wikipedia in no way competes with Google.

QFT

[Pekka]

Well the other one is a search engine while the other one is a dictionary.

If I need to find information, I simply use both and other ways as well. To me it's not exclusive, it's a combination of things.

Something I really appreciate is Scholar Google. It's really good, it actually does work pretty well and I use it constantly, at least few times a week. Naturally I use other portals etc to get me articles, but as far as finding the right articles, I first find them with scholar google and then fetch the interesting ones with whatever to actually get them. That's because the scholar google has way more advanced search engine than others when it comes to finding articles.

[snoopy369]

The english word is "Encyclopedia" not "Dictionary".

[Pekka]

So very sorry.

[Asmodean]

Still, in a strictly business sense, every click that goes straight to Wikipedia, because the information there is so easily accessible, is a click that Google loses

[Wiglaf]

So, every site on the web competes with Google.

Realize that Wikipedia is not a search engine and you're set.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The english word is "Encyclopedia" not "Dictionary".

"Encyclopaedia"

[Winston]

Wikipedia generally sucks donkey balls, except for those cases where you're in search of the exact date at which a person

a) was born

b) turned gay

c) was first commended in a NY Times editorial for being such a wonderful person

and

d) died

I can't think of any other site that quite equals Wikipedia's level of horrendously biased and brain-dead blabbering on about things, despite all the supposed efforts to the contrary.

It will never work as a credible source for wider topical information. Not for me.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Pekka
So very sorry.

It's also Google Scholar, not Scholar Google. You've got a long way to go before you can speak English in a bar without getting laughed out, Pekka.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So, every site on the web competes with Google.

Realize that Wikipedia is not a search engine and you're set.

Uh uh - not that simple. Of course, Wikipedia is not a search engine. Everyone realises that. I am not talking about search engines here. I am talking about access to information, which is distinctly different.

Asmodean

[Wiglaf]

Of course sometimes I do a search on Wikipedia and not google. I also occasionally do an A9 search when I want to buy something on Amazon. Google is still irreplaceable when I want to find sites/programs/documents/etc on the web, and Wikipedia does not provide a service remotely similar to that.

Every site wants my attention. CNN.com, Wikipedia, Amazon, Apolyton. This does not mean they compete with Google. They do not provide the service Google does. It is like saying my aged mother is in competition with the local nightclub because she wants to talk to me sometimes and spend my time with her. My mom does not provide beer or girls

Anyway, you said "in a business sense" they compete. This is false. Google has an elaborate ad-based business model that Wikipedia does not.