Available @ Amazon.com
Two stories motivated this post:
Recently there has been quite a stir within the SEO community with people seeing a huge dominance of wikipedia in the Google search results (Graywolf has been one of the more vocal critics recently with a whole load of posts - although he’s been writing about it for some time).
But don’t just take Greywolf’s word for it - there’s plenty of articles about this, most notably recently the google cache wrote about how 96.6% of wikipedia articles rank in the top 10 of google.
It has been noticed outside the world of SEO as well - PR Blogger has just written an analysis of Fortune 100 companies’ wikipedia pages.
"Larry Freed, president of Foresee Results which did the survey for the university, pointed out that users don't see anything different in Google's portal from what they saw three years ago. But Yahoo has refurbished its portal and gained in points." More on this Yahoo! Overtakes Google in Latest American Customer Satisfaction Index survey
My 2 cents:
The above search result, limiting search, is and was a common practice already and offered by Google. What's new that adds with a plugin? I don't know.
FYI. Search Google with a minus sign (or go to advance search feature and select: without the words), and see the results for: medicine -wiki, -wikipediahere and here for medicine here (without any search restrictions)
There was significant interest in our piece yesterday on the online tool that shows the identity of organisations where employees have changed Wikipedia pages.
The focus of the story was changes the CIA had made to pages, but other organisations - including The Vatican, the US Democratic Party and US company Diebold - didn’t escape our attention.
A new tool can help trace anonymous Wikipedia edits -- and improve the reliability of the online encyclopedia.
DUSSELDORF, GERMANY (08/16/2007) - A word of caution about editing entries "anonymously" in Wikipedia: a tool has been developed that can show who made the changes.
My 2 cents:
Does identifying the organization or collective group of people editing it (more so do that without expertise), doesn't increase or decrease the value of tool. And comparing this Wiki, with Enclyclopedia Britannica has already been dealt in the media: Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'
See also my previous posts:
Labels: Dictionary, Reference, Reviewing, Web Analytics, Wiki
More about (my new home) Google sites and the old home, READ 
No comments:
Post a Comment