Several media outlets have recently reported on a Wikipediocracy post that linked Wikipedia's decline in readership to Google's Knowledge Graph. Google's application places snippets of relevant information on the side of search results, much of which is taken from Wikipedia. Individuals looking for information on a subject may be less likely to click through to an article if the information is provided in search results. The Daily Dot asks "Is Google accidentally killing Wikipedia?" The Register links Google's use of Knowledge Graph to its alleged antitrust activities being investigated by the European Commission. Non-US sources covering the story include de Volkskrant, Corriere della Sera, Cubic Pro, Web Wereld, HWSW, Abondance, and The Times of India.
The New York Times (8 January 2014) published a lengthy article on Wikipedia by Judith Newman, asking Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page? Written in a humorous style, the article described Newman's (mock?) frustration with the fact that she did not have a Wikipedia biography (a fact since remedied). Newman also offered some criticism of Wikipedia's editorial policies and internal culture – quoting among others Wiki-PR chief executive Michael French, who told her:
| “ | ... one client said to me that dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife. | ” |
She also asked French about the recent sockpuppeting scandal his company has been involved in (see previous Signpost coverage here, here and here). French said,
| “ | Wikipedia is historically very anti-commercial, and we’re the biggest company being paid for consulting, so we became the target. There is not an official policy against it, but the idea of having paid editors is very divisive within the Wikipedia ranks. If you think of it, it’s not surprising: there are thousands and thousands of people volunteering to do these pages. But many have an agenda, whether they are paid or not. | ” |
Newman did not seem to have a problem with the fact that there were Wikipedia consultants editing for money:
| “ | As someone whose preferred method of tackling any problem is to throw money at it, I’m actually very glad there are Wikipedia consultants. They may hype things? Oh, boohoo. I see how friends who stay under the radar are constantly burnishing their reputations in ways large and small. And all it takes is a couple of unpaid but Internet-savvy interns to do the spin doctoring that has become so common among politicians. Moreover, many pages have such an odd or inaccurate beginning that you have to be truly famous or notorious for that page to have enough devotees to massage it into usefulness. | ” |
And she said that she loved the idea of crowdsourcing:
| “ | I love the idea of crowdsourcing; I love the notion that amid the jokesters and provocateurs, there are thousands of dedicated souls trying their best to arrive at some semblance of truth, even if that truth involves, say, the varieties of historical Christian hairstyles. (The marauding barbarians? Mullets?) | ” |
Discuss this story
Block quotes
Why do many editors use pull quotes, as above, when they should be using block quotes? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miami Herald
The Miami Herald link goes to the Wire link from the next line. --Geniac (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline in readership
The Wikimedia Foundation brought corrections to the counters, these go back to August 2013 ("Major overreporting in recent months has been fixed today"). There is less contributors, thus less articles' views (to modify a page, you usually load the current version ; and after once modification is noted, the Wikipedia engine sends the new version ; thus, one modification brings two views), and Wikidata -- one-year old -- takes care of interwikis (previously maintained by bots). Knowledge Graph is one amongst many factors to consider. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're confusing hits for reads. As for multiple hits per edit, have we any ratios for logged in reads vs anon, or reads vs edits? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one of the kinds of commercial re-use that we write for, and that the free content movement is about. Google is very far from the only commercial mirror of Wikipedia, but it may be the wealthiest. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judith Newman
Followup article here. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and Google