extreme webmaster evernerve

As I am sure that you have already noticed, Google is heavily biased towards Wikipedia.

Whenever you do a search via Google, chances are that in 90% of Google’s SERPs Wikipedia will come out as result #1 or at least among the top 3 results.

Google SERPs for… Google

For example, Google thinks that Wikipedia should explain to you what is del.icio.us all about, rather than the popular social bookmarking website itself. That is just completely retarded. Well, at the time of the writing of this post, Wikipedia isn’t the #1 result for del.icio.us, Digg or StumbleUpon searches in Google. But second or third it is.

It could be said that Google is perhaps the ultimate social networking website. Everyone is there. Well, almost. If this is so, and even if it isn’t, why isn’t Wikipedia among the top results for the search on Google? Do you know where is Wikipedia positioned in SERPs for that search? On the third SERP. Aaargh!

Below the link is the description which says:

Features information on corporate history, products, business policies and culture supplemented by criticism and links.

(emphasis added by me)

If you check out the page on Google in Wikipedia, you will see a link that points to the page about the criticism of Google. It is understandable that a company wants to protect itself and its image. But when you are pushing Wikipedia in your SERPs so aggressively for other search terms and companies, it should make sense that you do the same for your own company. So that you live by your own words. But no, they prefer to be retarded hypocrytes.

Good old dictionaries aren’t that important anymore (and professional reference too)

I googled for the French word oesophage because I haven’t been sure about its exact meaning (it’s an organ in our necks which serves to pass food down). Here’s what I got:

1. The first fucking result that I got is of the French Wikipedia?! Arrrrgh!
2. The second is the link to a French-English dictionary, where the word’s translation is given.
3. The third one and the ones that follow it are medical web sites, finally.

So, one can conclude that a “free encyclopedia” is more reliable than a dictionary or than a professional opinion from any given field? More authority is given to an open encyclopedia than to academia? Why?

This is all the more disturbing especially when it has been known that Wikipedia is used for dubious purposes. If I want to know a medical fact, I want an expert opinion, not something written by whomever.

The same with dictionaries: they have always been respected as the most reliable sources when one searches for meanings of words. For me, their academic authority goes undisputed. I have many dictionaries at home. This precious books are a lifelong investment. In fact, they cost too little for what they provide you with. They were created by academics who have continued the tradition that has been going on for generations, with the best possible knowledge being passed on from mentors to their disciples, who became experts too. And yet, here we have free content editable by anyone which is considered more authoritative and important.

Countries are what Wikipedia tells you they are

If you enter the name of any country in Google, you’ll get Wikipedia’s entry as the result #1. Only after Wikipedia’s entry come the official results (links to the country’s governing bodies and institutions) and the official tourist guides (which are wonderful websites, with elite content and design in most cases).

Why the fuck is the damn Wikipedia’s entry on any given country more relevant than that country’s official websites? “Wikipedia will tell you about this or that country, it knows better than any official of that country.” Fuck! Stuff like this really gets on my nerves! Google sucks!

Some questions need to be asked

All of the above would pose no particular problem if the most powerful Web company wouldn’t give so much importance to Wikipedia. The question that I’m asking is:

Why is Google doing this?

My wild guesses are:

1. Preparing people to accept Knol as a really reliable source of information when the hour comes. By positioning it above Wikipedia in SERPs, it will automatically be considered more authoritative. In time, Wikipedia will probably be degraded step by step until it drops down to a third or fourth results page.
2. Google has plans for Wikipedia. Maybe they will strike up a business deal, who knows? Imagine how much revenue would come Google’s way if AdSense appeared on every page on Wikipedia.
3. The deliberate dumbing down of the average web user and indoctrination. This is for the paranoid types: Bang in people’s heads “free” enough times and eventually they will start to see free content as more relevant than authoritative and professional content. The standardization of retardedness.
4. A PR stunt. Showing off the free encyclopedia as the most relevant result in 90% of the cases makes you a very nice sort of person who really cares about the freedom of speech and the “information should be free” motto. That makes you really credible and will make it possible for you to pull off any other stunt more easily, when the time comes. Also, it makes you a really good person which sticks by the “Do no evil” motto, so you can more easily be a hypocrite.

What do you think are the reasons behind this behaviour by Google? Write a comment, I’d really like to hear your opinion.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed or leave a comment. Share and bookmark: