Talk:Google hosting

The simple solution is to require that google make the entire archive available to anyone for a nominal fee (covering their costs and overhead) for as long as Google uses the encyclopedia. If google agrees then their motives are most definitely altruistic. If not, they are almost certainly looking to co-opt the wikipedia archive and interface into google (similar to what they have done with usenet news, being the sole owner of a historical record).

I'm wary of Google's access policy at the moment. I've been blocked from them because they - incorrectly - believe I've got an infected PC. I have no means of redress, and no contact details are given by Google.

This has nothing to do with your ISP having infected users. --Mboverload 03:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Best make sure Google can't pull stunts like that if they don't like certain Wiki contributors etc. --202.49.141.2 01:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. --207.253.111.55 01:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Wikimedia hosts Google! Project2501a 09:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

If this works out, Google could be providing great help for Meta Wiki.

Will it be something like what Google Directory do with the Open Directory Project right now? .. a kind of "snapshot" page --81.155.140.162 01:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This can mean one of two things:

1. Google sees a certain commercial promise (which is not too unclear if you think about it) in the wikimedia projects, and hopes to set its roots early. We've already seen that Google is making some very long-term investments (e.g. its recent dark-cable purchase, and employment of the plan9 designer). Also, Google undoubtly sees itself as the main - if not sole - dealer of information, in the forthcoming age of information trafficing. If this is the case (and only those who have seen the actual offer can say that), I'd say wikimedia should resist the offer.
2. Like most hi-tech corporation bosses, Google's founders are technocrats. They'd like to see society progress, and perhaps that's even the motivating force behind their Google enterprise. Like Ford and Carnegie, who have spent billions on universities, theatres and even political movements, the Google people want to help without looking for any profit in it. Wikipedia preserves technology, science, culture, arts - ideas. Preserving Wikipedia preserves human progress. And if this kind of thinking bred Google's offer, I'm all for it.

Just my two cents. 192.115.24.176 01:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Internet Archive hasn't offered their resources. Wikipedia is a public resource that might suffer from any commercial involvement.

It would be impossible for Google to do anything that would adversly affect wikipedia. Since wikipedia is community run, they cannot complain/do anything about about an article citing bad things google has done. All they are doing is offering hosting and a more integrated search.

This is not time for the tinfoil hats. Put them away, save them for the when the MPAA sues Wikipedia for having articles about movies. --Mboverload 03:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These guys are already copy catting microsoft! The only reason Google wants an encyclopedia is because the new msn search can search through encarta (pretty sweet stuff). I guess google with their billions doesn't want to pony up for their own commercial encyclopedia!

That's stupid. You can't buy an encyclopedia like Wikipedia with cash. --wikt:en:eean

Also, google already searches wikipedia and its ad-sponsored mirrors. Can't be it. 192.115.24.176 12:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So the money could be spent developing open technology for the site. I doubt the only thing that's needed is just bandwidth and CPUs. 80.111.239.225

Wikipedia is the top result for a growing number of search terms in Google, and on the first page for many more. The site can't handle all that traffic, so lots of people end up having to click on the "cached" link after waiting a few seconds and seeing an error message. For them, Google is *already* hosting Wikipedia. This sounds like nothing more than a way of making it official, and saving a few seconds for people who click on Google's Wikipedia links.

Excellent point. I would add the following: since Wikipedia does come high up for so many of Google's results, the smooth running of the Wikipedia site is in Google's interest - Google's value to its users comes from the fact they can use it to get the answers they want quickly. So if Google spends a few 10,000ドルs on ensuring Wikipedia rules smoothly by hosting it themselves, it will easily pay for itself in terms of user satisfaction for Google itself. One caveat: the agreement has to be permanent. Wikipedia can't get itself into a situation where it's become dependent on Google, and then Google goes and changes the hosting terms, and Wikipedia has no choice but to acquiesce because it has no other options.

I'm not sure if we are not shooting ourselves in the foot here -- the agreement shouln't permanent; if it is, then we are dependent on Google. Nothing lasts forever, and signing a permanent deal is the fastest way to become dependent. ✏ Sverdrup 17:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a great offer. could google also sponsor a decent search? eg. google enterprise search

40 edits, and all that's been achieved (apart from vandalism by /. twits), is [1] changing from plural-use of a group of people (Google) to singular - "Google bave" -> "Google has", a BE -> AE change.

Does meta have a policy against such changes?

James F. (talk) 11:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is at Official Meta Policy on Spelling. ;) Angela 11:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The points 1 and 2 above are good. How about we assume point 2 (altruism or at least something non-harmful to WP), and protect the rights of WP and its content from 1 (commercialisation). I couldn't care less what people's motives for helping WP are (commercial, altruistic, strategic)... so long as it does actually help (ie no rights lost, no sneaky takeovers or anything). Hosting and such from google sounds pretty synergic to me.

Let us assume 192.115.24.176's second option: that Google is treating this as Bill Gates does a library, as a humanitarian act. Unlike a donation such as a batch of hardware, Google is offering an ongoing service. If Google ever goes bankrupt or gets bought by a less generous company (both unpleasant but fully possible events), the resources they donate could be snatched up and repurposed, leaving Wikipedia dry and gasping. While I don't see this as a complete argument against the agreement, it's a risk all parties have surely taken into account. NickDouglas 13:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This seems like pretty basic math here. The more useful info out there on the net, the more useful google is. the more useful google is, the more money they make. wikipedia has proven to be a very successful way of creating a huge amount of content. it also does things (and could do more things) that google (and other search engines) might be able to use to make their search results even more relevant. specifically things like categorisation and timelines and multiple languages could be a great help to search engine authors.

it might be a good idea for the wikipedia team to see if google would be willing to make document any mediawiki/google interfaces that improve searching - in the interests of helping other search engines (good for competition) and other content systems (good for sites, google and its users). not the algorithms google uses obviously, but the interfaces and how they might be used.

likewise it's a win for wikipedia. there's bandwidth gained for sure, but it wouldn't be a bad thing for mediawiki developers to work with search engine authors so that each can get a better understanding of their issues.

i think it can be a win for google, a win for wikipedia, a win for other search engines and a win for users. there is lots of room for growth - billions of people have never used the internet. everyone can come away with something. skepticism and realism are good things and i hope people think through the consequences. but likewise hopes and goals are good things too and i hope they are given consideration as well.

--KevinLyda 14:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's better to rationally list the pro and contra of such a move. In my experience

1. You never "give away" content in exchange of Communication Capacity (all that is needed to copymove a bit from point A to B) 2. Because the CCapacity is relatively cheap when bought in enormous quantities , like Google does 3. The Wikipedia Brand, Wikipedia Database, Wikipedia Userbase, Wikipedia Concept are entities who raise the value of otherwise almost valueless CCapacity

Google would benefit noticeably by adding Wikipedia results to their search results a) by increasing satisfaction of users (offer them more kind of results, let them pick their choice) with an almost 0 cost increase b) by captivating user attention for more time (incresing likelyhood user sees a commercial) c) by selling sponsored links further sponsored by Wikipedia co-branding d) by slapping another interface on the content and sell adds while destroying Wipedia concept and brand

In exchange, Wikipedia would receive theoretically infinite bandwidth and server capacity, but not necessarily quality of service neither service : that is to say, Google isn't (afaik) assuring Wikipedia free-users (not paying) they're going to receive any access or timely access to their database of choice (Wikipedia) nor that edits of the database and backups are made promptly avaiable for consultation and/or modification.

Imho, it is best to remain highly mobile and not to give up either content and/or brand..the moment you become dependant is the moment they screw you (not the Google tech guys, those are usually nice grunts...but the Google corpomotherfu guys, those are more like leeches) --84.220.22.101 14:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)