Robert Cox is an idiot.

In other words, Google is now manipulating its search results to force Wikipedia entries to the top whether the entry contains useful information or not.

Bullshit. Notice how he doesn't go into the PageRank algorithms Google uses. Why doesn't he do that? Because it throws his entire "Google is manipulating results to serve its far-left agenda" bullshit out the window (or he just doesn't understand it at all; equally likely).

So tell us, Lorie, since this is one of your "linking not thinking" posts, do you buy Cox's theory?

So pretty much the Democrats are winning in the "We can lie online and not get caught" contest because everything you read online is the truth.

So to win this game we should start editing Wiki's to reflect what we want to be the truth and trick Google into having our pages ranked higher by using linking tricks.

I'll let them win as long as we stay honest and we continue to combat their SPAM of lies.

mantis,
I respect Cox, who knows far more than I do about this stuff. I don't know if I "buy" his theory, but it is a fact that the right lags far behind the left on utilizing the internet to raise campaign funds. As for the Google/Wiki subject, whether or not it is intentional, it is pretty indisputable that they dominate the internet in the search engine/information area and I know that every time I do a search I get a Wikipedia entry in the top few results. Whether it is intentional or not, there is a big gap between the right and left when it comes to using the internet to get their message out and it is something those on the right will have to address seriously or be left far behind. I found it interesting and thought many readers would as well. I would think you would be applauding what he says, if you read the entire column, that is, since he says the right is far behind and cannot do much about it in time for 2008. Hopefully you are right that Cox is wrong, but I doubt it.

Come on Shelby, that kool-aid is dribbling all over your chin. This post makes it perfectly clear that the right doesn't have clue (as usual) and is just making crap up again.

They don't understand how that dang-fangled Internetty thing works -- so how the heck can Cox make these claims? - easy - he just makes it up!

Lorie: "I know that every time I do a search I get a Wikipedia entry in the top few results."

There are reasons for this - but take off the tin-foil hat and investigate why - instead of spinning lies. Sheesh!

Shelby sez:

"we want to be the truth"

That's a rather telling statement.

Sorry I messed that up -- Shelby's quote is:

"what we want to be the truth"

That's a rather telling statement.

I don't think the Google algorithm itself is biased, but biased people have figured out how to "manipulate" the algorithm into putting their desired results at the top of the search.

I think it's a symptom of the left in that there are a lot more leftists who have nothing better to do with their time than figure out and do things like this. If they were required to be productive and work hard, like most on the right are and do, then this would not be an issue. But then again, they were productive and had a work ethic, they wouldn't be leftists anyway.

And Wikipedia is hardly a credible source of information. It can contain credible information but not always. Anyone can post anything there. Of course that's just like the rest of the internet. It should be taken with many, many grains of salt.

Adrian Browne if you would put my words in the context of how it was written it would make sense.

And Lee if you remember there was a political candidate in the last election who's Wiki page was updated to reflect false and negative information that was untrue. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/arts/10wiki.html

Also if you know how to trick Google it can be done. If they catch you then your pages can get banned all together but what are the chances of that happening. http://www.e-marketingsystems.com/badtrick.htm

But since I'm a little high on the kool-aid I'll stop talking about what I do for a living. By that I mean using Web 2.0 to help businesses streamline their operations.

As for the Google/Wiki subject, whether or not it is intentional, it is pretty indisputable that they dominate the internet in the search engine/information area and I know that every time I do a search I get a Wikipedia entry in the top few results.

That is because Wikipedia is an immensely popular site, in terms of links, which are what PageRank is primarily based on. As Wikipedia has grown larger and gotten older, the number of sites linking to it--and, more importantly, the number of sites that themselves have high linked-to numbers--has grown and grown. As individual Wikipedia entries are part of the larger Wikipedia site, even new entries benefit from its popularity and rank.

BTW my main dispute with Cox's article is his assertion that Google manipulates results to favor Wikipedia. Google's PageRank algorithms do favor hugely popular and oft-linked to sites; there is no need to manipulate them to help Wikipedia.

I would think you would be applauding what he says, if you read the entire column, that is, since he says the right is far behind and cannot do much about it in time for 2008. Hopefully you are right that Cox is wrong, but I doubt it.

It's true that the left is way ahead of the right in terms of political use of and organizing on the internet, but as he says, the left feels it needs "to own the Internet the way the right owns talk radio." However what Cox doesn't recognize is that talk radio has gatekeepers the internet doesn't have. Anyone can have a webpage. Anyone can start a Wikipedia. If you do it well and other sites link to you, your rank will rise.

Speaking of which, how's Conservapedia doing? Ouch.

"Speaking of which, how's Conservapedia doing? Ouch-mantis"

???

Worst Oliver Cromwell entry EVER.

And no entry for PNAC at all.

Orgasm for Churchill. Airbrushed photo, too.

NEOconservapedia

Thanks for the link to Conservapedia, Mantis. I didn't even know about that site. It is a refreshing alternative to Wikipedia.

And as far as your "Ouch" goes, Mantis, it took Wikipedia many years to get to where they are now. A one month drop is pretty meaningless. Time will tell.

Thanks for the link to Conservapedia, Mantis. I didn't even know about that site. It is a refreshing alternative to Wikipedia.

Oh, you're welcome. Enjoy. ;)

A good entry:

Kangaroo
After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart, or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters. The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

I'm going with the veggie-raft theory.

Another good one:

Theory of Relativity
"Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity....'All things are relative' became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity."

Damn politicians pushing their theory of relativity on us.

Oh by the way, most entries are written by a group of home-schooled kids, and the vast majority of references are to home-school texts. FYI

O.k. Mantis, those two examples were pretty wacky. But then again Wikipedia is not immune to things like that either. It doesn't appear the conservapedia has been around for that long. In time I'm sure things like that will editied.

It doesn't appear the conservapedia has been around for that long. In time I'm sure things like that will editied.

For their sake I hope so. However, I first learned about those posts in February, and as yet they have not been changed. I guess they're short on contributors who would correct such things, or they just disallow them.

While Mantis may have pointed out a few exceptions that appear to be posted by far right Christian fundamentalists, compare and contrast these:

Global Warming at Conservapedia: "Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling. During the recorded history of mankind, these cycles of warming and cooling have occurred every 1,500 years."

Global Warming at Wikipedia: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation...most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

In fact if you go on to read the entire Wikipedia article it is no differnt then the examples for kangaroo or the theory of relativity Mantis posted above. And this is after 6 years of editing, not 2 months.

O.k. now I just went and read the Kangaroo entry on Consevapedia. It cleary states that the exerpts that Manitis cherry picked and posted above are identified as being from "creation scientists". Get it? The bias was identified before the info was presented.

Robert Cox provided me with the following on the Google/Wiki relationship and how the manipulation occurs. It has nothing to do with the algorithms.

"...anyone who says that Google is not manipulating its search results to push Wikipedia to the top is simply uninformed. On February 1, 2007 Google launched "personalized search". Everyone who has any kind of Google account (Gmail, Google News Alerts, Blogger, etc.) and is logged into Google automatically gets the "personalized search product". Using this new service users can set preferences for their search results. One of the DEFAULT settings is to force Wikipedia to be the first search result in all searches. This boosts Wikipedia directly (anyone using personal search gets Wikipedia as the #1 result by default) and indirectly (more people are clicking on Wikipedia which gives that page a higher page rank so that ALL users find Wikipedia higher up in search results). In my experience, I have met few Google users who realize that when they login to Google they are using personal search - and since they do not know that they have no idea there are preferences and so they leave the default settings in place.

Beyond that, Google is supposed to be providing users with links that other users clicked on - the whole promise of Google was to use links and clicks as "votes" to show everyone else what other people found to be useful information vis a vis their search. By definition an empty Wikipedia page or "stub" does not meet that criteria yet a significant percentage of the time those pages not only show up in Google but show up as the all important #1 result.

If people want to debate whether Wikipedia is a balanced source of information or whether Wikipedians show political bias we can have that debate. To debate whether Google is stacking the deck in favor of Wikipedia is a pointless discussion because it is prima facie the case. Anyone who says otherwise is simply talking out of their....hat."

The Wikipedia entry for global warming is quite different from the entries I posted. For one, it contains 47 references, dozens of links for further reading, and links to a number of authoritative external sites (IPCC, NOAA, NASA). The Conservapedia entry for global warming contains a single reference, to what appears to be a personal link clearinghouse collected by someone who describes himself as having "some background in geology," which is replete with links to such energy company shills as the CEI and JunkScience, and a lot of editorials. It has several incorrect assertions, which it does not bother to source.

Btw, in regard to your misunderstanding/false implication that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the normal climate cycles on Earth, it's obvious that they are referring to current warming by the term "global warming," and if you want to read about past cycles you can do so readily in the Paleoclimatology entry, which is conveniently linked from the global warming entry. How about that?

"It has several incorrect assertions, which it does not bother to source"

Just because something doesn't fit into your religious dogma does not make it incorrect.

The Wikipedia article is 95% propaganda/religious dogma and precious little fact. The Conservapedia article had one paragraph that was questionable. The rest was factually correct although it may be laking in refrences and external links.

"it contains 47 references, dozens of links for further reading, and links to a number of authoritative external sites"

Look at the entry in Conservapedia in 5 years and then compare. Right now it's apples to oranges.

Lorie, you need to stop listening to this guy; he doesn't know what he's talking about.

On February 1, 2007 Google launched "personalized search".

That was launched back in 2005. They added some features in February.

Everyone who has any kind of Google account (Gmail, Google News Alerts, Blogger, etc.) and is logged into Google automatically gets the "personalized search product".

Most people who search on Google do not have accounts, and those that do don't have to log in.

Using this new service users can set preferences for their search results. One of the DEFAULT settings is to force Wikipedia to be the first search result in all searches.

Bullshit. He's just making this up. I have several Google accounts, and no Wikipedia setting exists. In addition, I search all the time while logged in, and Wikipedia is very often not the first result.

This boosts Wikipedia directly (anyone using personal search gets Wikipedia as the #1 result by default)

Repeated bullshit.

and indirectly (more people are clicking on Wikipedia which gives that page a higher page rank so that ALL users find Wikipedia higher up in search results).

He doesn't understand PageRank.

In my experience, I have met few Google users who realize that when they login to Google they are using personal search

Well, it's their fault for not playing around with Google. There's lots of cool stuff if you're curious enough.

In any case, try reading up on what "personalized search" actually is. What it does is record everything you do on Google (search, click, RSS, bookmarks) and use that data to customize your search results. There is no "Wikipedia by default" setting. Ask Cox where such a setting exists, or better yet, just log into Google and find it yourself. I can't. Oh, and by the way, check this analysis of the different searches (logged in, not logged in). Notice Wikipedia anywhere in those results? Why not? The default setting should push it up top every time!

Beyond that, Google is supposed to be providing users with links that other users clicked on - the whole promise of Google was to use links and clicks as "votes" to show everyone else what other people found to be useful information vis a vis their search.

Want to go back to pre-google search engine days? Didn't think so. Want something better? Build it! While Google's structure does allow for a site like Wikipedia, with over 2.5 million back links, to show up in results more than it maybe should, that does not point to some Google/Wikipedia conspiracy, and anyone who says it does is woefully ignorant of the technology he is writing about.

By definition an empty Wikipedia page or "stub" does not meet that criteria yet a significant percentage of the time those pages not only show up in Google but show up as the all important #1 result.

Gotta call bullshit on this as well. I have never had a Wikipedia stub or empty page show up first. In fact I can't remember one showing up in the top ten.

To debate whether Google is stacking the deck in favor of Wikipedia is a pointless discussion because it is prima facie the case.

Based on what? Cox's intuition?

Anyone who says otherwise is simply talking out of their....hat."

Cox has the biggest hat in town.

Another link: Why Is Wikipedia On Top in Search Results?

Now tell me, if Cox is correct, and this is a default setting (or a setting at all), how come searchengineland, webmetricsguru, and the webmaster world forums don't mention it? All the posts from those sites are from February. You would think they would have, you know, noticed.

I thought Conservapedia was a parody, sort of like:

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/

"There is no "Wikipedia by default" setting. Ask Cox where such a setting exists, or better yet, just log into Google and find it yourself. I can't."

Neither could I - and I also couldn't find anything in the Google documentation that confirms Cox's brain fart.

Nice hat, Lorie. Nice of you to come back and offer more kool-aid too! Maybe next time Cox could provid a link to back up his claim?

"I thought Conservapedia was a parody"

That's sad Adrain, that you have such an opinion of things that don't fit into your worldview. Narrow-minded.

As for Wikipedia being inaccurate:

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

"...For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. "

Also this doesn't adjust for the fact that Wikipedia's articles tend to contain more info than Britannica. When adjusted for this length, Wikipedia tends to be more accurate.

http://blog.case.edu/aaron.shaffer/2005/12/16/accuracy_wikipedia_vs_britannica

"Result: Wikipedia average article size: 6.8KB. Britannica: 2.6KB; Wikipedia errors per 2KB: 1.3. Britannica: 3.6."

Sure, anyone can go onto Wikipedia and blow their wad without any facts. The good part of this is, other people can see and edit the same thing, and then complain about. If enough of this happens, the more trusted editors realize it's a controversial topic where people can't be trusted to be adults, and they lock it down.

Wikipedia = Not perfect, but quite reliable.

I thought...

It's good to try new things.

Google
Never
Ever
Tampers.

Google
Never
Ever
Tampers.

Ah yes, another issue but an important one. I don't mean to claim Google is perfect.

Well, for my part, I am leading a single-handed boycott of Wikipedia on my own little corner of the internet. So far, there is a grand total of one, solitary link to Wikipedia on my weblog, and, hopefully, that is as far as it will go. I find the entire concept distasteful and distrustful, and my own personal experience with the system has been far from enjoyable. It is undeniably biased and elitist, and not really worth my time. Many, many other sources on the internet are just as useful and informative - you just have to do a little digging, as opposed to being spoon-fed by people with massively ulterior motives.

jim,
your article is from 2005. Wiki has changed since then. Like the rest of the tech world, it moves at a rather astonishing pace.
Many schools prohibit using Wikipedia for citations. The calsses I am currently taking, and the 3 clases I have taught in the last year (what we do to stay current in the eyes of management) also ban Wikipedia citations. Great for leads, but not a final stop on the research trail.

Well, I work for Fox Interactive Media. A lot of engineers and computer scientists who are at the top of their game, including the people who built MySpace (which we've bought).

And FIM has used and is using Wikipedia to build semantic maps and models of real-world information, because these engineers and computer scientists think that Wikipedia has just about the most accurate and comprehensive overview of information currently available.

So, I can understand schools not wanting students to be able to cite Wikipedia. That's probably because they don't want the students to change Wiki entries to suit their conclusions, rather than research more.

But that isn't a reflection on how much they trust Wikipedia. It's a reflection on how much they trust their students.

Here's a separate study done on Wikipedia in 2006. This study asked experts in distinct fields to rate Wikipedia's articles for accuracy. Non-experts were used as controls.

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/

I personally have no problem with Wikipedia, as I do NOT use it for controversial subjects. The Wikipedia admins and vandals are annnoying sometimes (they have a propensity to delete articles if they are "stubs" - apparently they would prefer no article at all to "stubs", which in my view is quite stupid sometimes), but for the articles I actually use it for, its not bad. I'm a "member" of Wikipedia, although I haven't contributed much, except for a few article's discussion pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hengineer