Google or Wikipedia - Which is Your First Stop? 171
dwarfking asks: "Over the last several months I have noticed that more and more often, when I am searching for information on the web, I find myself starting at Wikipedia instead of Google. It used to be that the first hit on many of my Google searches linked to Wikipedia articles, so I started going there first. I've found that except for searching for current events, by starting with Wikipedia I get a good explanation of the topic of interest and the pages generally have links to other good resources that are right on topic (without the need to scroll through dozens of hits). Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, do any of you think this could become a trend for the larger community? If so, then what could that potentially mean for Google?"
Wikipedia! (Score:3, Interesting)
So yeah... me too. :)
It depends on the question (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, if I want to find information about "Maxwell's Equations" or "Plate Tectonics", I'd probably go to Wikipedia first, because I'm pretty sure I know what I want. Even if the Wikipedia entry itself doesn't contain the information I'm seeking, it probably has a link to someplace that does. On the other hand, if I'm looking for information about something less clearly defined, of less general interest, or subject to frequent change, like "Linux printer drivers" perhaps, then Google is the way to go. (To complete the idea of a spectrum of resources: if I wanted a driver for an HP printer, I'd obviously go directly to HP's site.)
I don't think your observation portends any great shift away from Google, since I suspect that most queries made by most people fall into the second category.
Neither (Score:5, Interesting)
First: either a WIkipedia link or a link to the "official" site, depending on what you searched for. Ask is good at identifying the nature of the search.
Second: about 10 relevant links, with no junk, no ad site, no sales sites.
The downside is that Ask's advertising links are rather obtrusive; they put them at the top and bottom of the page, with a subtly different background color.
My switch from Google was based on a combination of performance and politics: I don't really miss it.
Re:Google still wins (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is still the first place I go for most of my queries. However, I find myself going to Wikipedia first when I want an overview of a topic and I know I've got a good keyword to get to it. And often when I'm using Google, the first article I look at is the Wikipedia entry.
Where my usage has really changed is when my first choice of keywords for Google leads to too many wrong responses (too much verbiage about Paris Hilton when looking for hotels in Paris). When this happens I now often look for a Wikipedia article to scan for better keywords to feed to Google. This is a very slick way of quickly narrowing the scope of the search.
Google is incredible. Who would have guessed that searching with "30 mi + 10 km = ? leagues" would get an answer?
Re:Google (Score:3, Interesting)
g for google
gi for google images
gg for google groups
gm for google maps
w for wikipedia
y for yahoo
d for dictionary.com
i for imdb
amz for amazon
t for technoarati.com
The best thing about this system is you can get rid of the search box and reclaim some FF real estate
Wikipedia Google for information (Score:4, Interesting)
I was searching for data on "USB Mass Storage support in Windows 98" - That was a mistake; Pretty much ALL the hits were for the selling ofr USB Flash drives, with a couple of informational hits, which had nothing to do with Win98.
Google's search quality was extremely good when it first came out, esp. compared to its primary rivals at the time (Altavista/Yahoo), but as it's risen to the top, it's basically been hacked.
The search quality is now as bad as Yahoo and Altavista's used to be, when they were the premiere search engines in the old Modem-days.
IMHO, all sales-related hits should be shucked into Froogle; That alone would clear up the search results substantially.
Re:It depends.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's music search system is fantastic - but it doesn't carry enough information. I have to follow a link to a vendor site to get release information, or to find a larger picture of the album cover to save.
Wikipedia, however, has discography for almost every band, with detailed release information and usually a good-quality album cover. I've started using it first, and only going to Google when Wikipedia's article is missing or incomplete (which is rare).
Re:Google (Score:3, Interesting)
An accidental middle-click becomes an odd form of "Go to a sort-of random page", which is often tantalizingly connected to what you're currently doing. Sometimes it's freakishly connected to what you're doing and it's hard to see how Firefox went to a weird page that was so connected.
It took me several weeks to work out what was going on, actually, and sometimes I still find myself pasting into emacs to see what search string took me to this weird page.
It's kind of odd to consider that Google will return a "top page" for just about any combination of real words you can imagine, regardless of how strange or unconnected they are. I've been to some odd pages this way.
Re:Google wins (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeap, I have never read so much about history and other random topics before I started reading Wikipedia. It's almost addictive. I also signed up for Brittanica to give it a fair trial, and while the writing is somewhat better, the linking is generally pretty hopeless, and the coverage of some topics very basic. So although I read some articles, it didn't lead me on constantly to new interesting topics like Wikipedia does. Besides being free and free to edit, another major strengh of Wikipedia is in embracing direct linking as a primary part of articles. This probably reflects the origins of the two encyclopediae.