Google: Would You Like More Wikipedia With Your Results?

15 comments

While most SEO's have noticed the extremely favorable treatment that the Wikipedia gets Hitwise published some stats showing Google is sending Wikipedia 166% more traffic than it did last year:

If it seems like Google is sending more traffic to Wikipedia than in the past, it's because it is. The percentage of Google's downstream traffic going to Wikipedia increased by 166% year over year (week ending 2/10/07 vs. week ending 2/11/06). Last week Wikipedia was the #3 website in Google's downstream, after Google Image Search and MySpace.

Personally I find wikipedia like a visit from your mother-in-law who won't leave, pretending to be an expert but more often than not having a clue what they are talking about.

Comments

on the other hand

That increased traffic could just be me ;) I think I've learned in the last year if I don't see something jump out at me just to take the wikipedia link, it generally gets me in the space I want, gives me some context to explore.

Personally I take all sources back upstream for the water that hasn't been pissed in if I need to cite them, or get the canonical dope - the world's full of downstream drinkers of course

General Info sites in the SERPS?

Graywolf, most Google users aren't as leet as you. The vast majority like Wikipedia because it provides a topic in a nutshell. What other results do you see in the SERPs that do a better job than Wikipedia?

Its more the results we don't see that are telling

Very few University sites show up in the SERPs these days

Standards

Call me crazy but I'd like a website who is more concerned but getting it right instead of it just being citeable, but I guess I'm funny like that

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

Heck I might also say enticing a higher level of author expertise by allowing commercial URL's would be a good thing, instead of allowing any random passerby being able to profess their expertness simply because they are non commercial.

@kali

if you want to see universities just search for pharm, poker, porn and .edu sites rule!

@graywolf

if you want to see universities just search for pharm, poker, porn and .edu sites rule!

LOL so true

> a higher level of author expertise

re: verifiability, not truth

Reminds me of a quote (attribution unknown)
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."

This, of course, applies to the tv news, print reporters, etc., as well as wikipedia.

related TW thread: Vermont College : Students may not cite Wikipedia as a source

Not in the regular serps

If Google wants to show Wikipedia search results then they should put the results in a little spot somewhere else on the results page. They could include other links there too which they consider authority sites. But I don't like seeing Wiki results in the regular SERPS. The idea that Wikipedia has a page on like anything you can think of just sounds like someday it would outrank the rest of the web for all searches.

Maybe traffic growth not due to preferential treatment?

I'm always somewhat skeptical about linkages between cause and effect.

Last I recalled, Wikipedia's growth rate for existing pages and new articles was really high. So, it may not be that Google's treating them with greater preference than usual (though it could be logical if they did) -- perhaps it's just a factor of them having greater amounts of content available to find.

Has anyone got the stats on previous numbers of articles versus now? If the percentage growth is similar to the percentage growth of traffic according to Hitwise, you might find the "smoking gun".

Also, I'd expect there's been continuing growth in their inbound links -- which might also enhance their rankings in Google. A preferential treatment just because of Google's ranking algorithms, rather than a strictly human-tweaked bias. Though, I'd expect Google's quality evaluators could also be a factor...

Wikpedia

I would like to formally request a wikipedia only search from google, make it a tab like for Google News, Video, etc.. and get the Wikipedia pollution out of the SERPS.

Great Idea

The Founder, excellent idea, I'll sign the petition.

I'll sign the petition

Dugg

Consider it dugg!

It's to the point where the title of this thread should actually be:

Google: Would You Like More Results With Your Wikipedia?

Full Ack, MattKP !

If you want to dig in the Wikipedia scrapheap, go there directly. Relying entirely on the infallibility of this self-proclaimed encyclopedia, you won't need a search engine anyway.

Let's make it a search of

Let's make it a search of the cache of wikipedia, while we're at it. Let Google do the work, eh?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.