Wikipedia is a popular resource on the Web. In fact, it is one of the world’s top-10 most visited websites. Now someone else is trying to take Wikipedia on by imitating it. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions.
What do you think about Mr Cauz’s remarks about Google’s ranking of Wikipedia? Mr Cauz also made comments about Wikipedia itself. To what degree do you agree or disagree with his comments about Wikipedia and the people who use it? How successful will Encyclopedia Britannica be with this new ploy? What would you recommend Encyclopedia Britannica do to be more successful?
Watch Out Wikipedia Article
16 comments:
I think it’s rude and extremely unprofessional of Mr. Cauz to say that about Google’s ranking of Wikipedia because obviously, if Google is the number one search engine, then the way it’s running its search is smart and helpful; not something to be criticized. I don’t agree with Mr. Cauz’s comments because from my experience I’ve been on Wikipedia a lot and I researched the information after getting it from Wikipedia; and it was correct. I don’t think that the people that use it are stupid, because they trust Google since it’s a well-known and trusted search engine. Basically, I completely disagree with Mr. Cauz’s comments; the people that use it are smart enough to decide whether the information is made-up, or true. Encyclopedia Britannica will not be very successful with its new ploy because the people are used to information from specific experts; not people that use the internet. Plus, there could be an error that they allowed to be published by mistake, it happens. I think this will just cost them way more, and result in them using their clients. To begin with, Encyclopedia Britannica can try not insulting opponents; it shows them as unprofessional and excessively competitive. Also, they can cancel their new plan and keep up what they’d been doing before since they have so many articles. Personally though, I go to Wikipedia often. And in my opinion, I trust it and it’s not “good enough” as Mr. Cauz says, it’s great, and really helpful. And I think I’m smart enough to familiarize information that’s not true, compared to true research.
I agree with Mr. Cauz's thoughts. The fact that Google promotes Wikipedia, is very odd. Wikipedia is nothing but bits and pieces copied from sites, short scrawls from people who think that they know what they're talking about, and flat out lies. Yes, Wikipedia can be right, but being that you don't know who the authors of these pieces are, so all Wikipedia really means is that after finding out this information, you'll be forced to find a credible source that says the same information somewhere else. Most teachers do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, for this very reason. It seems that Mr. Cauz is not only demeaning his competition, but also the people that use it. That is very wrong of him, seeing as he does not know every person who uses the site. Not every person that uses that site is an incompetent fool who believes that the site is good 'enough'. I think that the idea of allowing people to edit the online version of Britannica is a good move, but what makes it even better is that it won't be some foolish kid changing something on the site, because it won't make it past the editors. I would recommend that Britannica make its services free- that's probably what’s deterring a lot of potential users. If it's a one time research paper, it won't be worth it to buy a $69.00 subscription for one year. That would ridiculous.
While I don’t find Mr. Cauz and his opinions as being professional, due to the fact that he makes random conclusions about certain people and attacks his opponents directly, he still is right to some degree, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source for people to visit when they want certain information. Just like Mr. Cauz mentioned, it doesn’t make sense that Google promotes Wikipedia. With Google being the number one search engine on the internet, promoting such a site as Wikipedia takes away from its credibility. Anybody can enter Wikipedia and make changes without being stopped. People who enter Wikipedia can also write entire articles and publish them without them being checked by professional Wikipedia editors. What’s less fortunate is the fact that many people rely on Wikipedia entirely when they are conducting research projects and they end up using inaccurate information. Due to this, many teachers, especially the ones here at ACS, recommend that students only use Wikipedia as a starting place for their research and then visit more reliable websites so they can gather information that is 100% accurate. Despite having said this, I sometimes use Wikipedia to gather information for research projects, as it is very detailed and covers all topics to the fullest. On the other hand, I don’t believe that other Wikipedia users and I are dumb and always “welcoming” to other websites, which prevents us from evolving as human beings, like Mr. Cauz said. It’s one thing to attack your “online enemy”, but insulting people that visit the site of your opponent is definitely crossing the line, Mr. Cauz. I believe that Encyclopedia Britannica will be successful with its new ploy because while “normal people” will be making edits to online articles, professional editors will be checking these articles to make sure if they can be published or not. As a result, we can come to the conclusion that Encyclopedia Britannica will be more successful than Wikipedia, as only certain articles that contain accurate information by reliable sources will be published. In order to increase its success, Encyclopedia Britannia should try to be more “friendly with its opponent” and not directly affront the people that visit the site of its “enemy”. I’ll probably never use Encyclopedia Britannica because I was “pushed away” with Mr. Cauz’s arrogant comments. With that mind of his, Mr. Cauz probably stopped evolving a long time ago or he will find himself “stuck in the moment” soon enough.
OMAR ABDEL-RAHIM POST
I definitely don't agree with what Mr.Cauz has said. It is an extremely rude, unprofessional thing to say. Wikipedia is definitely a good research site. I checked Wikipedia, and then confirmed the information I already knew. It is definitely a high quality website, which is fairly reliable. I personally don't think that they will be very effective if they continue to act like this. It sends a very negative image to the public, which is not a good thing for them to do, and will decrease their popularity. I think that the best thing to do would be apologize to the people at wikipedia, to show that they are good people. Also they should try promote Britannica as a great search engine, instead of belittling Google and Wikipedia. That is how I think they could be more successful.
OMAR ABDEL-RAHIM POST
I definitely don't agree with what Mr.Cauz has said. It is an extremely rude, unprofessional thing to say. Wikipedia is definitely a good research site. I checked Wikipedia, and then confirmed the information I already knew. It is definitely a high quality website, which is fairly reliable. I heavily disagree with what Mr.Cauz said. I personally don't think that they will be very effective if they continue to act like this. It sends a very negative image to the public, which is not a good thing for them to do, and will decrease their popularity. I think that the best thing to do would be apologize to the people at wikipedia, to show that they are good people. Also they should try promote Britannica as a great search engine, instead of belittling Google and wikipedia. That is how I think they could be more successful.
Mr.Beyer, please disregard my above post. I accidentally posted it when i wasn't done.
Dang, I meant to capitalize "I" in the above one. Don't count it please.
I think that Mr. Cruz is really unprofessional, he shouldn’t criticize his opponents this shows how low of a person he is and these criticizes will affect his website visits. I don’t think he should be criticizing Google because they are a successful and a intelligent website and they are doing a really good job, almost 90% of the people worldwide use Google, so he shouldn’t be criticizing them while the are doing a good job. But I agree with the fact that Wikipedia is not that reliable, but there is this attraction that appeals you to go on Google and search for Wikipedia for you information because it gives good information, and gives you vivid descriptions. I think that Britannica is going to be successful be not like how successful Wikipedia is.
I defiantly don’t agree with Mr. Cauz words because Google is one of the most respectable search engine companies in the world and now him just bad mouthing them to promote another subject is so childish and unprofessional. Wikipedia is almost the fists search result that pops up when you search Google. And there is good reason why Google put it there. Yes the information can be changed by any one but Encyclopedia Britannica need to be number one in Google so they can start getting more hits on their sites, they should mimic Wikipedia in some areas but it is a good thing that Britannica checks the info.
I think that Really Google is not at fault for anything here.
all Google is, is a search engine and if that shows up then it's Wikipedia that they should show. I think that The guy who runs Britannica, is just jealous that a site with a cooler name and less credentials is beating him in hits.
i think that usually Wikipedia is correct because they have things always rechecked and replaced by often very smart people who are learned in that subject.
encyclopedia Britannica could make more articles on events and things so that they show up more often on Google searches this would help them to get more hits.
also if they got some cool new name, like Globalica instead of Britannica, they might get more hits.
Omar Al-Sadi(Afro)
I don’t agree with Mr. Cauz. Google is one of the most popular, respectable, and reliable search engine. Him badmouthing and saying negative stuff about it is just wrong. It is also very unprofessional. For me Wikipedia is really good and it gives me my information really fast. It is also almost ever time that when I search something Wikipedia is the first search engine that pops up. Even thought the information can be changed, nobody really changes it in a negative way because somebody will quickly change it back. Encyclopedia Britannica isn’t really that successful YET, but it will be soon. It just needs to get more hits and more people have to know about it and it will be really successful. Since it checks its information unlike Wikipedia it will be more successful because it will be trusted.
I think it’s right and wrong what Mr. Cauz opinion about Google and Wikipedia. I agree that Wikipedia information is just copied from sites and other people but Wikipedia can be right. You can’t know whom the authors of the information and anyone can enter Wikipedia and change some facts. I know many people who don’t use Wikipedia. What Mr. Cauz said about Google is wrong because Google is the number one search engine. Everyone I know researches from Google and find Wikipedia as a source that helps them and they use it. I don’t find it Google’s or anyone’s fault to use Wikipedia as a source like what Mr. Cauz said. I think that Britannica make its free like Google and shouldn’t insult Google and Wikipedia.
I think that Mr. Cauz is saying the wrong thing that Google is not a good search engine. I also think that it is the only one that has all the good articles and the good websites. I would disagree on what Mr. Cauz had to say to Wikipedia because it is the best source that is being used in the Internet today. I also agree when people use it they say that it is fine and good enough. I think that Wikipedia is good and when the people said that it is good, it proved that everyone likes it. Encyclopedia Britannica will be very successful because it is a good search engine. I would recommend Britannica to have more English articles.
I will have to disagree with Mr.Cauz. It's stupid to say that about Google's ranking of Wikipedia. This is business, they are in for the money not for what people think of them, and they definitely don't care about this guys opinion, as I said before, they are in for the money, and Wikipedia would be a good source of that money. He says that people might edit articles, and add false facts. Though this is true, I still disagree with him because if this happens Wikipedia instantly fixes it. He said that many people rate Wikipedia with a "Good" I would personally rate it "Fine" but nothing below that, as it could come in very useful when doing big amounts of research. I think Encyclopedia Britannica might gain a few more hits from its new ploy, but Wikipedia will still be what I use, because I got used to it. I would recommend that they advertise more because I rarely hear of them...and they should make the text easy to read, and make the site easier to reach.
I would like to say that Mr. Cauz and his opinions are not professional because he makes some conclusions that are not all true. Though, I would have to say that when he actually does make a good conclusion, he hits the jackpot. When he said things about Google shouldn't promote Wikipedia, he was right. I actually agree with Mr. Cauz, People who enter Wikipedia can also write entire articles and publish them without them being checked by professional Wikipedia editors which make the source very unreliable. I think that Britannica will not be successful because of their $69.00 fee. I think that if Britannica make their fee free or at least only $5.00 or even $10.00, they would be really successful.
I agree and disagree with Mr. Cauz's comments about Wikipedia. First I agree that volenteers should not be allowed to write anything they want about a subject on Wikipedia's website. I have used Wikipedia and I use their refrenceses to locate professional articles. I disagree with Mr. Cauz's opinion about Wikipedia's users being uneducated. Wikipedia is in the top ten because it is fast, easy, and free. I am conserned about Encyclopedia Britannica's new website and their "approved" users. I am not sure how successful Encyclopedia Britannica will be because it did not mention a fee. If Encyclopedia Britannica is a free site, I think it would be successful based on its name alone but I think Mr. Cauz's attitude in his article may have lost him some public support. It reminds me of Limewire vs. iTunes. The information/songs are already on the internet we need to be careful to get the correct version.
Haha obviously, it’s really unprofessional what Mr. Cauz did, google is obviously the first search engine and the most respectful, although it might be kind of odd promoting Wikipedia. And his comments about Wikipedia are also randomly random. Usually when I go on google to search for something, Wikipedia is the first source given, so in my opinion it’s really reliable.
I don’t think Encyclopedia Britannica will be that successful with its new ploy. At first, a good thing to do, would be to apologize for what they did to the people of Wikipedia and google, I also think they should be more active in what they do and they should make their service free.
Post a Comment