Comments on: Vote: Is Wikipedia credible enough for Google News?

By: Ken Storch

Ken Storch — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:07:45 +0000

Hi
The photo "Too Many Eyes" should be credited to 'Ken Storch'

Thanks for the linkback.
Cheers,
Ken Storch
www.PhotographyUncapped.com

By: jehzlau

jehzlau — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:01:46 +0000

I think because it has a lot of useful information even if others edit it without a reliable source, the editors behind Wikipedia is spending most of their time and doing their best to give us what is really true and accurate.

So I'll vote yes. However, Wikipedia is not optimized for Google news. It's mainly an online encyclopedia. Unless they'll create a page for Wiki Latest News and Updates. :D

Just my 2 cents. :)

By: jehzlau

jehzlau — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:01:46 +0000

By: Are bloggers influencers, journalists or both? Does it matter? | Thoughtpick Blog

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:30:55 +0000

[...] I like what Andrew Lih, an editor/administrator at Wikipedia, said about journalism:

By: Amer Kawar

Amer Kawar — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:26:38 +0000

If people respect that, and Wikipedia force referenced-only updates, then I agree with you. But I think things are not working like that, and news items still manage to get onto Wikipedia quickly enough.

By: djcastel

djcastel — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:40:32 +0000

By Wikipedia's own standards, it should not be used as a news source. No current events are supposed to be posted in Wikipedia unless it is already referenced in some reputable news source. Being a tertiary source, it's entirely redundant to include Wikipedia as a news source. In fact, editors are actively discouraged from posting current events until the facts are well established (especially on biographical articles).

This is an unfortunate decision by Google. As if they haven't done enough already to inflate Wikipedia's search rankings.

By: Amer Kawar

Amer Kawar — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:39:05 +0000

Hmm, the people to my left and right do have some good thoughts and ideas. As news sources, they might depend on less reliable channels, but they have good opinions and can spot non sense, and would probably fix it on Wikipedia.

You just contributed with a valid perspective to this post, don't you think that if you found a mistake on Wikipedia you wont go in and fix it? I would - if I've got time.

There are 10's of millions of Wikipedia users!

By: ER

ER — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:36:39 +0000

I vote YES!

By: kathcom

kathcom — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:49:28 +0000

Look to your left and right. These could be the people determining “facts”. So, um, NO!

By: Amer Kawar

Amer Kawar — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:32:53 +0000

I think Wikipedia is reliable, and would vote yes.

But I do have my doubts about the freshness. Wikipedia's 'many eyes' collective intelligence moderation has a cycle from the moment the piece of information is added till the time the 'many eyes' see and correct it.

Maybe Google News should use it along with some sort of difference calculation algorithm. Let me try to say what I'm thinking of in English: the algo scans Wikipedia constantly (Google does that anyway) and decides which piece of information was added and when. I'm sure the Wikipedia 'update-edit' cycle has some sort of signature that Google can figure out and start predicting what's news and what's just a spelling-correction.

... my geeky thoughts :P

By: FadiPick

FadiPick — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:43:38 +0000

While I feel wikipedia is credible enough, I don't see it really work as a source of news. I mean news should be fresh, and if it is fresh enough on wiki, then there would be no enough time for people to filter out false information.