Wikia Search May Have Trouble Achieving Critical Mass

from the notability dept

Mathew Ingram notes that Jimmy Wales's company, Wikia, has unveiled a new version of its search engine. The basic premise of the search engine, allowing users to edit search results the way they can edit Wikipedia pages, is clever. But I think Wales is going to have difficult making the project successful. The fundamental problem, I think, is a matter of raw mathematics: there are far, far more potential web searches than there are pages in Wikipedia. Last month I critiqued the business model of Biographicon, a site that's attempting to create a Wikipedia-style page for everyone. I argued that they're likely to have trouble making it work because any given page is unlikely to have the critical mass of contributors necessary to make the wiki model work. I think Wikia's search engine is likely to suffer from an even more serious case of the same problem. Wikipedia achieves this critical mass by limiting itself to subjects that are "notable." But a search engine can't have those kinds of limits. People want a search engine to have good responses even for (maybe especially for) obscure searches. And by definition, it won't be possible to get a bunch of people to contribute to the page for an obscure search term.

Closely related is the problem of bias. Wikipedia strives to take a neutral point of view, presenting all viewpoints fairly and accurately without passing judgment on which one is correct. This often leads to pages being longer than they would otherwise be, but they tend to be reasonable representations of what various people think on the subject at hand. This approach won't really work with a search engine because people expect the most important search results to be at the top, and deciding which results are the most important is an intrinsically subjective decision. If Wikia's search engine ever became popular, it could be beset by edit wars that would make the infamous Danzig/Gdansk edit war look tame. Companies pay search engine optimization firms thousands of dollars to improve their Google ranks, a successful Wikia search would likely succumb to the same kinds of pressure, and the site appears to lack Wikipedia's well-defined procedures for resolving disputes.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

I Learned It From Watching YOU, Big Content

from the bad-copyright,-bad dept

The Washington Post is running an article covering a bunch of cases where big companies have been using content from user-generated content sites, like Flickr, without permission -- upsetting the amateur content creators. Some of the cases we've talked about in the past, and a few others are pretty well known as well. Basically, they usually involve someone at a big company making use of an image he or she found on Flickr without getting permission and then using that on TV, in a magazine, in an advertisement or on the web. Quite often, the companies that are doing this are also known for their own overly-aggressive attempts to combat copyright infringement of their own works. What's unfortunate about these cases is that, rather than recognizing how silly copyright is no matter which direction it's going in, many of the people are reacting just like the big content companies themselves. This isn't surprising, but it is a little depressing. The Big Content companies only have themselves to blame, of course. Their "education" campaign has only alerted people to become more attuned to thinking of content as property, and more ready to sue over its use. This situation is only going to get worse, as more and more amateur content is out there, unless we start realizing that it's time to peel back copyright law, stop thinking of ideas as property that can be owned, and start recognizing there are ways to embrace the sharing of information and content that makes everyone better off. The Washington Post asks if that would be "total anarchy," which suggests little recognition of the history of content creation or free markets.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google Maps Should Push The Wikipedia Analogy Further

from the peer-production dept

Google comes out with a seemingly unending stream of little enhancements to its stable of excellent online properties. One of the more exciting additions to come along in a while is the fact that users of Google Maps will now be able to move the markers on Google Maps. So if you search for your house and find it points to a point far down your street, you just click "Move Marker," drag the marker to the correct location, and hopefully save future visitors difficulties. A lot of people have pointed out the parallels to Wikipedia, but it seems to me there's a lot of unrealized potential to apply the lessons of Wikipedia to improving Google Maps. For starters, Google Maps is missing a lot of information. For example, there's a sushi restaurant on my block, but a search for "sushi" or "restaurant" won't bring it up. I should be able to click "add marker," enter the relevant information, and drop a pin in the appropriate place. Similarly, I should be able to add tags to existing markers; right now, if I search for "restaurant," a lot of restaurants near me don't show up, even though they're in the database. I should be able to add a "restaurant" tag to existing markers. I should also be able to add other types of tags to the map to mark road construction, historical sites, and other points of interest. And Google might even want to allow users to edit the information in existing markers, which is often incomplete or out of date.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..