Reply to post: Maybe Wikipedia is high because people click on it?

How 'parasitic' Google's 'We're journalists!' court defence was stamped into oblivion

DougS Silver badge

Maybe Wikipedia is high because people click on it?

If I did a search for aardvark and see a few links like Nat Geo along with Wikipedia, I'll probably choose Wikipedia. It is likely to have whatever information about aardvarks I'm looking for, and if it doesn't will probably provide enough information to help me refine my search to "aardvark mating habits" or whatever.

If I was looking for info about Trump Russian collusion I'd not want Wikipedia because 1) it likely isn't well updated on fast moving current events, and 2) it is a highly partisan subject so even if there was info about it it would be the victim of partisans on both sides editing it until it was locked down and become no longer current or no longer accurate depending on the politics of those who were allowed to edit it.

And surprise surprise, Wikipedia is the first choice for aardvark but not on the first page for Trump Russian collusion.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019