Is Google hurting Wikipedia traffic?; "Wikipedia-Mania" in the New York Times

In the media

Is Google hurting Wikipedia traffic?; "Wikipedia-Mania" in the New York Times

Is Google hurting Wikipedia's traffic?

Several media outlets have recently reported on a Wikipediocracy post that linked Wikipedia's decline in readership to Google's Knowledge Graph. Google's application places snippets of relevant information on the side of search results, much of which is taken from Wikipedia. Individuals looking for information on a subject may be less likely to click through to an article if the information is provided in search results. The Daily Dot asks "Is Google accidentally killing Wikipedia?" The Register links Google's use of Knowledge Graph to its alleged antitrust activities being investigated by the European Commission. Non-US sources covering the story include de Volkskrant, Corriere della Sera, Cubic Pro, Web Wereld, HWSW, Abondance, and The Times of India.

Wikipedia-Mania

The New York Times (8 January 2014) published a lengthy article on Wikipedia by Judith Newman, asking Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page? Written in a humorous style, the article described Newman's (mock?) frustration with the fact that she did not have a Wikipedia biography (a fact since remedied). Newman also offered some criticism of Wikipedia's editorial policies and internal culture – quoting among others Wiki-PR chief executive Michael French, who told her:

“

... one client said to me that dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.

”

She also asked French about the recent sockpuppeting scandal his company has been involved in (see previous Signpost coverage here, here and here). French said,

“

Wikipedia is historically very anti-commercial, and we’re the biggest company being paid for consulting, so we became the target. There is not an official policy against it, but the idea of having paid editors is very divisive within the Wikipedia ranks. If you think of it, it’s not surprising: there are thousands and thousands of people volunteering to do these pages. But many have an agenda, whether they are paid or not.

”

Newman did not seem to have a problem with the fact that there were Wikipedia consultants editing for money:

“

As someone whose preferred method of tackling any problem is to throw money at it, I’m actually very glad there are Wikipedia consultants. They may hype things? Oh, boohoo. I see how friends who stay under the radar are constantly burnishing their reputations in ways large and small. And all it takes is a couple of unpaid but Internet-savvy interns to do the spin doctoring that has become so common among politicians. Moreover, many pages have such an odd or inaccurate beginning that you have to be truly famous or notorious for that page to have enough devotees to massage it into usefulness.

”

And she said that she loved the idea of crowdsourcing:

“

I love the idea of crowdsourcing; I love the notion that amid the jokesters and provocateurs, there are thousands of dedicated souls trying their best to arrive at some semblance of truth, even if that truth involves, say, the varieties of historical Christian hairstyles. (The marauding barbarians? Mullets?)

”

In brief

Vandals: BuzzFeed (2 January 2014) had a list of spectacular acts of Wikipedia vandalism.
Loins: Slate (8 January 2014) took a look at Wikipedia's articles on genitals, and discussed the impact of the gender gap on how these articles are written. The author also managed to contact an anonymous exhibitionist who is excited that his penis is featured in Wikipedia … and that his is now "the fourth when you search penis on google images".
No biography for Abby Martin: Weblog The Dissenting Democrat (12 January 2014) wondered why RT journalist Abby Martin does not have a Wikipedia biography. (Her entry currently redirects to RT (TV network).)
Wikipedia pages for small businesses: The Miami Herald (13 January 2014) offered advice on how small businesses should go about getting a Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia's 13th birthday: Mashable, The Wire and Business Insider (15 January 2014) published articles celebrating Wikipedia's 13th birthday.
Sarah Stierch: The recent departure of Sarah Stierch from the Wikimedia Foundation was covered by The Daily Dot, Ars Technica, The Independent (UK), The Irish Independent, WebProNews, The Times of India and a number of news outlets in other languages than English.
German study: Covert PR in Wikipedia: German journalist Marvin Oppong published a study on covert PR editing in Wikipedia. The study is being vigorously discussed in the German Wikipedia, on the Kurier's talk page.

Next "In the media" →

In this issue

15 January 2014 (all comments)

In the media

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Block quotes

Why do many editors use pull quotes, as above, when they should be using block quotes? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Herald

Fixed

The Miami Herald link goes to the Wire link from the next line. --Geniac (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in readership

The Wikimedia Foundation brought corrections to the counters, these go back to August 2013 ("Major overreporting in recent months has been fixed today"). There is less contributors, thus less articles' views (to modify a page, you usually load the current version ; and after once modification is noted, the Wikipedia engine sends the new version ; thus, one modification brings two views), and Wikidata -- one-year old -- takes care of interwikis (previously maintained by bots). Knowledge Graph is one amongst many factors to consider. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why folks see Knowledge Graph as leading to a decline in readership of Wikipedia. It actually increases the number of people who see Wikipedia material, without that readership being reported in our figures. Yes, the material is very brief, but it is from Wikipedia. For example, I just searched "Fisher Fine Arts Library" on Google and got a photo from Commons and a 50 word summary of the Wikipedia article. So everybody who searches for the library will likely see this Wikimedia material. The fact that they might not click through to the article has pluses and minuses - but it's clear that more people are seeing more Wikimedia material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there are extra direct links to the full article and commons pictures, so anyone who likes the Knowledge Graph and wants more will visit us first. --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stats here say the overreporting is fully fixed, and any errors due to it have already been eliminated from the data. So the data is accurate, according to the Foundation, and page views are indeed down by 12% in the English Wikipedia, 17% in the German Wikipedia, and so on. Looking at the data for non-mobile page views, the decline is even greater: a whopping 21% for the English Wikipedia, 30% for the German Wikipedia, 29% for the Spanish Wikipedia and so on. Countries like Russia and China where Google isn't the dominant search engine were less affected. A 21% decline in non-mobile page views to Wikipedia is a potential long-term problem: people who do not visit the site on their computer do not see the fundraising banner, and they do not become editors (you can't really edit on a mobile phone). Right now, the Foundation has plenty of money; but if this is the beginning of a long-term trend of declining page views, it may have a negative impact on both the number of new editors coming in to replace those who leave, and on revenue. Which is essentially what the Harvard guy quoted in the Times of India is saying. It also weakens the Wikipedia brand name, and may in time affect Wikipedia's status as a top-ten site.

Another thing is that Google has advertisements. If, over the long term, more and more Wikipedia content is viewed in environments that carry advertising, earning a re-user like Google billions of dollars a year, then that raises its own problems. In theory, there is nothing to prevent Google from forking Wikipedia today, and creating a Googlepedia filled with ads (and perhaps some added bells and whistles). The licence allows it. Google is unlikely to do that now, but long-term I am not so sure. It's done things pretty much like that before. Andreas JN 466 13:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're confusing hits for reads. As for multiple hits per edit, have we any ratios for logged in reads vs anon, or reads vs edits? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one of the kinds of commercial re-use that we write for, and that the free content movement is about. Google is very far from the only commercial mirror of Wikipedia, but it may be the wealthiest. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the free content movement really about working for free so that others can earn money off your work? I'm not sure that's progress. Andreas JN 466 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some are bothered by that probability. Not me. Of my thousands of Wikiphotos, I've seen two used unattributed in a walking tour brochure and a small travel agency's Web site. With attribution, a British magazine and two New York area neighborhood newspapers. I know about these three because friends noticed the attributions. Probably dozens haven't come to my attention. Maybe hundreds. Somebody's earning money off the work I give away for free. It doesn't bother me. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Newman

Followup article here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Judith Newman makes clear that Wiki-PR is not conforming with the community ban and is asserting ownership of articles:

"(Wiki-PR) uses a lot of people, with different identities, to edit pages for paying customers and to manage those pages. The paid sock puppets are ready to pounce on edits that don’t adhere to the client’s vision."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It sounds like it's business as usual for them. Andreas JN 466 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Google

Kudos to Greg Kohs of Wikipediocracy for authorship of the blog post on the Google knowledge boxes and their potential effect on WP traffic. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About