What is Digg?47 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For real statistics on the growth of wikipedia see these sites:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
*http://tinyurl.com/ccdq7
As a wikipedian, I think we've made great advancements in the last year, especially in terms of organisation. There are now many focused WikiProjects dedicated to improving standardisation for certain topics. For example, I work on the wikiproject video games:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games - MWWLSE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Google can't really have huge increases in traffic, being that every single person in the universe already uses it daily.
- CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i love wikipedia and i would probably would be lost without it, i love how you can do "wp" searches from the firefox address bar (but not on the linux version, unfortunately). But this is some seriously weird news, MORE than gogle?! wow, that's really impressive!
- rivviepop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0pcgeek101: I agree, the way I usually *get* to Wikipedia is through a Google search. If anything, the two are complementary.
- deadlychicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^ me too
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0funny thing is, how I use Google to search wikipedia ...
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^ me three!
i've never typed in wikepedia's web address! Always through google searches...
Why doesn't google merge with these guys? Same kind of mission? - ajcomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't see how that's possible, it must be based on overall usage.
- Gtu101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are you SERIOUS. It beats out Google! WOW. Hope there's an RSS feed.
- MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yea but unlike Google, growth for WikiPedia can be a bad thing. Vandalism will grow along with it.
- Cronox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The article clearly states it passed Google News not Google itself. Who actually goes to the google news page (news.google.com)?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See also this CNN story:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/technology/wikipedia.reut/ - doofus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I quit using wikipedia. Their servers are slow and my time is precious.
- paintist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great, soon I'll see an article with the title "FOX BUYS WIKIPEDIA"
- warofwrath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For reference material I would agree that Wikipedia can't be beat. However, they still lack the resources to be either an independent news source or efficient aggregator. If you subscribe to the Wikinews RSS you will soon find that while they do dig up many unusual stories, they do not keep up well with "breaking news". If other news sources were better able to "wiki-fi" text into links then there would be almost no purpose to Wikinews.
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is a great living dicinary. It's great on that type of searching.
- bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At least wikipedia doesn't yield pr0n links when you are searching for a toy truck. ;)
- Anth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Heh, I spent an entire sunday a few weekends reading about commercial aircraft at wikipedia. There is definately good info there.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not concerned about the "breaking news" aspect, because much of it is junk filtered by the bought-out mainstream media anyway. The important journalism requires time, care, and integrity. One of the best things about wikipedia is that it can't be bought and poisoned by corporate interests.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, Google has offered to host the wikimedia content, including wikipedia. See:
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting
and yahoo too:
- http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_announces_Yahoo_support - bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^Nah
Too much complicated for ol' Rupert. - ArchAngel21x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Comparing Wikipedia and Google is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.
- roborob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NuncEtSemper - Can you please be more specific? Are you suggesting that just because x number of people thought it worthy to push "digg it" and 10 even thought it worthy to copy the incorrect information onto their blogs the made up facts and figures are thus justified? That's an interesting way to assess quality. (So by the same logic, would you also suggest that because millions of people use IE it must be a great browser or that because millions of people use Windows it must be a really high quality OS?)
I understand that some stories become popular here precisely because of their hilarity. Unfortunately, that's not the case for this story. Here, people are just being led blindly by sensationalist headlines. It's an interesting comparison to traditional media. In that sense Digg is not that different at times. - FlyingAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Wikipedia's is not really a 'news' site.
Also, it's not a commericial venture. It's sponsored among others but primarily by Yahoo! and...drum roll... Google. - skez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0www.answers.com is my favorite reference site, they basically pull information from a ton of sources (including wikipedia) and put it all on one page
this is also the site that google uses when you click on the definition for a word at the top right of the search results - NuncEtSemper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OBVIOUSLY some people thought it was good to deserve almost 1000 diggs. I dont see that coming from you guys.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is great for everything...it's the first place I go to, if "define: " doesn't get any results in Google :)
- kenhigginson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the only thing i've ever used wikipedia for is to find out why douchebags in online games keep saying "woot".
- Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love wikipedia. Like others have said though, it isn't great for 'breaking news' Its EASILY the best for getting info after the fact though.(there's more info about Katrina and the London bombings on wikipedia then on ANY other news site)
Problem is its to easy to dis-credit them, since its all open to the public. Thankfully the moderators clean most of the fake stuff out, but the fact that it IS on the page for a few minutes/hours/days makes it impossible to site it as a source for anything official, like a school project. - Suddud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^ LOL I agree, I use wikipedia to find out the random things I see on the internet, but for the most part when I want info on something I start with Google, then go through answers.com, and evrynow and then end up on wikipedia. The 3 are entirely different, anyhow like mentioned earlier, no one really relys on google news or wikipedias news for anything truely important.
- twistymcgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is evil. It sucks the time right out of my day. The reason is everytime I go look something up I find a dozen other things to look up, then from each of those a dozen more.
- fastfood15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ive never used wikipedia. So i gues its not long until their bought by yahoo or windows
- dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i would find it frightening if i knew anyone who relied on wikipedia for news. the fact that it's freely editable makes that a bit untrustworthy.
- imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wikipedia is amazing
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yet another stupid submission on digg - imagine that. Where does it say that Wikipedia is "now almost #1 site on the internet"? The Register article mentions that it is the top reference site and that Wikipedia is "fast becoming the number-one online resource". Google News is not a news site like CNN. It is an aggregation of various news sites. Let's compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Besides the Register article mentions a 154% increase not a 130% increase. Did the submitter actually read the article before submitting?
- PacoBell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dandiemer: Then you've obviously never been part of the editorial process. Read the comments and history section. There's more information there than the actual article most times ;)
- xenovoxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Last I checked, Wikipedia wasn't a news site.........
- p2btech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's the number two site in the reference category. Google is not considered a reference site. It's 53rd overall, not coming close to Google.
- nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BEHOLD THE POWER OF OPEN-SOURCE!!!!!
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This definitely is not your best work. It sucks. Your summary is totally different from the article you linked to. You make it appear as if Wikipedia is about to become the all-time best website on the net. I am happy that you acknowledge that your rather ***** submission does not meet my standards. I'm content that I did not stoop to name calling.
- PopMaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Have you SEEN any other articles of this person. THEY AWESOME! They have witty titles, and well constructed bodies. This might not be the most intersting story but you REALLY and I mean REALLY need to grow up. Using the whole "I know what you are but what am I" crap. And yeah
what stories have you submitted that make YOU such a litteray figure - Gtu101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0PopMaster- Yeah i agree totally. I like the sweet titles and the articles arent bad either, Mouskey need a life
- roborob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This digg is quite an example of how poor the quality can be on Digg.com. The headline is completely misleading, the blurb is incorrect and people just run with it without reading the actual article. Mousky, thanks for your apt critique of it. The grammar and spelling of people dismissing Mousky's comment is appalling, their tone infantile and just goes to show, yet again, the poor quality sometimes endemic of Digg.com. It's unfortunate, because the site has a lot of potential. It's ironic for all of this to come up on a thread where some people are discussing the reliability of info on Wikipedia. A discussion of that point about Digg.com would be at least as appropriate.
- GerardUht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Hey MOUSKY, doesnt look like YOUR submitting anything, might want just shut up and not make yourself look any MORE of an idiot. I've had 4 frontpage stories, you havent had any stories, maybe this isnt my best work, I looked at multiple sources, linked the best one, then posted it, sorry it doesnt meet your LOFTY standards. FAG
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Wiki sucks it'll never topple the giant
http://www.bogeydope.com
-mrglass
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is