Comments on: Finally, I get it! I get the Wikipedia! http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/ SEO and Marketing Blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:53:02 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rhea Drysdale http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-16529 Rhea Drysdale Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:06:12 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/#comment-16529 <p>Stephanie - That's an interesting point... </p> <p>However, I doubt Google is encouraging anyone to take real healthcare advice or guidance from Wikipedia. I think this fits nicely into Lisa's understanding that Wikipedia is just a portal to other sources of information, some qualified, some not. Do you have a specific example? I'd be interested in seeing if the results were really off or just a little. Knowing pharmaceutical companies though, I could see a whole team of spammers whose entire job is product placement or recommendation of aggressive treatments. </p> Stephanie – That’s an interesting point…

However, I doubt Google is encouraging anyone to take real healthcare advice or guidance from Wikipedia. I think this fits nicely into Lisa’s understanding that Wikipedia is just a portal to other sources of information, some qualified, some not. Do you have a specific example? I’d be interested in seeing if the results were really off or just a little. Knowing pharmaceutical companies though, I could see a whole team of spammers whose entire job is product placement or recommendation of aggressive treatments.

]]> By: Stephanie http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-16528 Stephanie Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:38:49 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/#comment-16528 Wikipedia is fine for some lite information - reading up about a place, popular celebrity, or historical events - but it's horrible when it comes to issues like health. I am disappointed that Google thinks that patients should consult a site that can be written/edited by anyone (aka marketers, people without medical training...) for their health information. Wikipedia is fine for some lite information – reading up about a place, popular celebrity, or historical events – but it’s horrible when it comes to issues like health. I am disappointed that Google thinks that patients should consult a site that can be written/edited by anyone (aka marketers, people without medical training…) for their health information.

]]> By: Rhea Drysdale http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-16527 Rhea Drysdale Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:55:43 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/#comment-16527 <p>Finally, she sees the light! Jk, nice post though.</p> <p>Thought I'd try to convince you even more though...</p> <p>Wikipedia has the potential to be more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia because it's more timely. In the 6th grade I remember doing a report on China and using Britannica as my primary source of info. Unfortunately, I didn't look up China in the revised books we got every year after the original subscription and a lot had happened since the three years prior. I got an A, but if I was the teacher I would have given me an F for not following up... what if I had grown up and sent a country to war over invisible WMDs because I was working off of out-dated or incorrect info?</p> <p>The point is, Wikipedia can document changes as they happen (given a motivated and informed editor), which returns more accurate information even if some of the details are wrong. Another fiery example... if I were to look up Ted Haggard in the encyclopedia he might still be the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals rather than a gay meth addict. On the other hand Wikipedia tells me about the scandal and even if a detail about how much meth he actually did is wrong, it's much more timely than the encyclopedia, which could help sway where I choose to attend church when I move to the area.</p> <p>:) </p> Finally, she sees the light! Jk, nice post though.

Thought I’d try to convince you even more though…

Wikipedia has the potential to be more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia because it’s more timely. In the 6th grade I remember doing a report on China and using Britannica as my primary source of info. Unfortunately, I didn’t look up China in the revised books we got every year after the original subscription and a lot had happened since the three years prior. I got an A, but if I was the teacher I would have given me an F for not following up… what if I had grown up and sent a country to war over invisible WMDs because I was working off of out-dated or incorrect info?

The point is, Wikipedia can document changes as they happen (given a motivated and informed editor), which returns more accurate information even if some of the details are wrong. Another fiery example… if I were to look up Ted Haggard in the encyclopedia he might still be the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals rather than a gay meth addict. On the other hand Wikipedia tells me about the scandal and even if a detail about how much meth he actually did is wrong, it’s much more timely than the encyclopedia, which could help sway where I choose to attend church when I move to the area.

:)

]]> By: Bob Weber http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-16526 Bob Weber Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:24:48 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/#comment-16526 Verifiability is really the only test for truth or accuracy. None of us live in a vacuum, human knowledge is based on the work of others. <br /> I think the problem you, and many of us, have Lisa is that we were brought up with the concept that an encyclopedia is an infallable source of information. Any other credible resource (textbooks, essays, etc...) have citations and references included in them. This is what makes them credible - and is probably why our teachers told us we couldn't use the encyclopedia as our only resource when we were eight. <br /> One other comment. How sad is it that a search for T doesn't come up with any links to Mr. T? What else would you be searching for? Certainly not AT&T. Verifiability is really the only test for truth or accuracy. None of us live in a vacuum, human knowledge is based on the work of others.

I think the problem you, and many of us, have Lisa is that we were brought up with the concept that an encyclopedia is an infallable source of information. Any other credible resource (textbooks, essays, etc…) have citations and references included in them. This is what makes them credible – and is probably why our teachers told us we couldn’t use the encyclopedia as our only resource when we were eight.

One other comment. How sad is it that a search for T doesn’t come up with any links to Mr. T? What else would you be searching for? Certainly not AT&T.

]]> By: graywolf http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-16525 graywolf Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:32:26 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/07/finally-i-get-it-i-get-the-wikipedia/#comment-16525 <p>Correct no one is optimizing for single and most double letter combos, as well as practically any three digit number, however the wiki ranks for all of them. Why because with out any real anchor text data to go on the main factor google has to rank on is domain trust and authority, which the wiki has. </p> <p>Call me crazy but any reputable organization which says truth or accuracy isn't important only being verifiable through and citation, has no cred in my book</p> <p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V</p> <p>(sorry for the link drop)</p> <p>my encyclopedias smelled like my basement BTW</p> <p> </p> Correct no one is optimizing for single and most double letter combos, as well as practically any three digit number, however the wiki ranks for all of them. Why because with out any real anchor text data to go on the main factor google has to rank on is domain trust and authority, which the wiki has.

Call me crazy but any reputable organization which says truth or accuracy isn’t important only being verifiable through and citation, has no cred in my book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V

(sorry for the link drop)

my encyclopedias smelled like my basement BTW

]]>