[p2p-research] Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building

[Michel Bauwens]

In this case,

I actually think that Google PR is favouring Wikipedia, at least for some
period.

I distinctly remember reading, but can't find evidence to back it up, that
at some point in time, Google did decide to favour Wikipedia pages, which
provided crucial support for the project at a critical time.

I'm not sure they still do it, since WP is now popular on its own,

and also not object to it, since at the time, it was a sensible thing to do,

does anyone have info to confirm or not, that google PR did give privileged
status to WP pages at some point in time?

Michel

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:49 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Missing followups (sent from mobile phone so list was not CCd)
>
> Marc wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Your argument that PageRank promotes sensationalism while wikipedia
> process promotes quality is self defeating because for every search on
> google on any given topic available in Wikipedia the first link in the
> PageRank result point to Wikipedia.
>
> In his case, you are frustrating yourself as you argue against your own
> logic.
>
> Marc
>
> ~~
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> big difference - between results and means.
>
> ~~
>
> Marc wrote:
>
> Are you saying that Wikipedia games the Google Pagerank algorithm or
> that Google treats wikipedia favorably due to political bias rather
> than based on an impartial algorithm?
>
> Both conclusions have negative implications on Wikipedia, but I doubt
> that they are true.
>
> What I know is true is that PageRank simply works and that is based on
> the fact that Google is favored by more users than any other search
> engine.
>
> So for any wikipedia competitor that allows multiple versions per
> topic the highest ranking version should have the same chance
> eventually as the Wikipedia page for that topic assuming it simply
> copies the Wikipedia entry, and if iy manages to have higher quality
> content according to PageRank then it should rank higher than the
> Wikipedia page for the same topic.
>
> In otherwords, having it done in an impartial way by an algorithm is
> better for freedom of knowledge.
>
> Having a few admins dictate what knowledge is has the smell of
> dictatorship.
>
> Marc
>
> ~~
>
> Chris wrote:
>
>    Are you saying that Wikipedia games the Google Pagerank algorithm or
>    that Google treats wikipedia favorably due to ppluical bias rather
>    than based on an impartial algorithm?
>
>
> Neither.
>
> Good quality, useful sites are often popular, so it gets a high
> PageRank. Wikipedia benefits from this. Also that it's easy for blogs
> to link to Wikipedia for explanations of things.
>
> Popular sites are not automatically good quality or useful in the same
> sense.
>
>
>    Both conclusions have negative implications on Wikipedia, but I doubt
>    that they are true.
>
>    What I know is true is that PageRank simply works and that is based on
>    the fact that Google is favored by more users than any other search
>    engine.
>
>    So for any wikipedia competitor that allows multiple versions per
>    topic the highest ranking version should have the same chance
>    eventually as the Wikipedia page for that topic assuming it simply
>    copies the Wikipedia entry, and if iy manages to have higher quality
>    content according to PageRank then it should rank higher than the
>    Wikipedia page for the same topic.
>
>    In otherwords, having it done in an impartial way by an algorithm is
>    better for freedom of knowledge.
>
>    Having a few admins dictate what knowledge is has the smell of
> dictatorship.
>
>
> But they don't, in the cases I'm aware of. There are rules, and some
> people don't like those rules, especially those promoting their own
> theories. That's behind much (not all) of the resentment towards
> admins.
>
> Chris
>
> ~~
>
> Marc wrote:
>
> Your argument is clearly in favor of the established order.
>
> ~~
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> doesn't matter much what it's in favor of - it matters whether the
> argument is sound.
>
> ~~
>
> Marc wrote:
>
> I don't think its sound today. Maybe a 100 years ago. That is my opinion.
>
>
> ~~
>
> This brings the list up to date on the Wikiversity/Wikipedia debate...
>
> Marc
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090221/f0a67f4d/attachment.html>