Google Should Pay a Big Share of Wikipedia's Bills

Last week word spread through the sphere that Wikipedia may one day not have enough cash to support itself. Now today Hitwise reports that 50% of Wikipeida's traffic comes from Google. What's more, Wikipedia has now cracked the Web's 10 largest sites. Google is 50% responsible and they should help WIkipedia, which operates as a not-for-profit.

The health of Wikipedia is in Google's best interest. The search engine's quality of results lately have been rising as it gives more credence to Wikipedia. Given this, one would hope that Google will finally pick up a big share of WIkipedia's expenses - namely bandwidth and storage. Google offered to host Wikipedia back in 2005. However, details are scant. One would hope that the two will consummate this proposed deal since they are both equally valuable to each other. Why the delay?

Tags: Google, WIkipedia

Comments

[The Doc]

This is just crazy - if that's the case Google should pick up everyone's tab. Google already offers a way for sites to be monetized and that should be enough.

"The health of Wikipedia is in Google's best interest."

This is nonsense too. Wikipedia is a threat to Google as more people turn to Wikipedia rather than Google.

[David Brazeal]

I've not really seen a strong case that Wikipedia's really as desperate as it claims to be. And aside from that, you've not really made a strong case that Google should be held responsible for Wikipedia's "trouble." Google is not responsible for 50% of Wikipedia's traffic. People searching for information via Google are responsible for 50% of Wikipedia's traffic.

If Google wants to do a deal out of self-interest, more power to it. But it doesn't need to feel half-responsible for Wikipedia's supposed dire straits.

[Randy Charles Morin]

I've noticed a big uptake in the Wikipedia is poor and needs money theme. They could easy get $million in VC funding. I suspect this is all a ploy to turn from not-for-profit, to we had to take financing to keep it going.

[Aaron B. Hockley]

If Wikipedia doesn't want the Google traffic, it can stop it.

Robots.txt would be the answer...

[Shay Frendt]

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the part about Google footing the bill here - it seems that Wikipedia should be able to leverage the incredible amount of organic traffic they receive from Google in a creative way. I love that they don't have advertisements on the wikipedia site, but imagine if they allowed 2 or 3 small and unobtrusive image ads on each page...I bet people would flock to advertise on the relevant pages: Nike & Adidas on the "shoe" page, for example.

[Ed Kohler]

Google's certainly capable of hosting Wikipedia, but they're in no way responsible for the success or failure of the independent website.

Suggesting that Google is Wikipedia-dependent for quality search results is a bit of a reach.

[Ryan Holiday]

All I want is for someone to step up and take over Wikipedia searches. It is by far the worst functioning internal search engine I have ever used. Ever.

[Rex Hammock]

Steve,I believe you are using the same logic the Telcos use in the the "net neutrality" debate -- that Google and others should have to kick back some of their wealth to the companies that enable that wealth to occur -- in their case, the Telcos. However, the Telcos would make the argument that Wikipedia also needs to kick back some more money, as well. I totally disagree with that logic. Your logic is flawed for this precise reason: You say Google is 50% responsible for Wikipedia's bandwidth woes, but the truth is (and you taught me this), it's the people who use Google who are responsible -- we are the linkers and clickers that fuel the Google juice. For whatever reason, Wikipedia has chosen to be a radically anti-commercial site and not overtly monetize those links and clicks and good old fashion page views. They could turn that into a mountain of money tomorrow, without threatening the integrity of the editorial content of the site. Whether it be Jason Calacanis' advertising approach, or getting serious with some NPR-like development work, or working to build an endowment, Wikipedia needs to get serious about figuring out a business model -- a non-profit business model -- that is self-sustaining and that is clearly understandable to those who would fund it. The poor-mouthing and woe-are-we stuff needs to end. I'm sure Google would contribute to the cause if someone could more clearly articulate what the cause is.

[rick gregory]

Google owes Wikipedia nothing. They send traffic there. They send traffic here - should they pay you for doing that? Where does such logic end? Should Digg underwrite the hosting bills for sites that get Dugg?

Wikipedia could easily monetize its traffic. If it chooses not to that's their decision and they should deal with the consequences. Wikipedia could put one ad - ONE on all pages. And likely pay for itself quite nicely. But don't get all pure on everyone, cut off everything aside from donations, and then cry poverty.

[gianluca b]

may be google should run wikipedia trough google.org
so people will start accusing them more and more to slip their hands into contents
or may be everything google does or doesn t is wrong
just because

it s sad though that every achivement in understanding the internet get distroyed to attack a succesfull company

wikipedia and so many others owns google its success
this is the way it is
please stop asking google to become a top bottom company

[Kevin Davis]

The problem here is that wikipedia and google are in direct competition with each other... as a hub for internet storage, social media and searching the web.

Google does this already, especially with it google books, blogging, cache and groups... but wikipedia is trying to break into the search engine market too.

The two couldnt work together when wiki seeks to overtake a good share of google's search engine users.

Kevin Davis
www.pivotalrelations.com

[Philipp Lenssen]

Google already helps Wikipedia a lot by sending traffic to their site (like they help other webmasters to bring traffic to their sites). Some people pay for this kind of traffic, through Google AdWords. Even *if* Wikipedia decides to not monetize the site through ads, which they could do in a blink to monetize the Google traffic -- this decision is outside of Google to make -- this makes it possible for Wikipedia to:

1. increase the donations they get
2. improve the quality of articles through increased user edits

But yes, I agree it would be cool for Google to help out with Wikipedia servers!

Note that in the past, someone "donated 187 shares of Google to the Wikimedia Foundation and we kept them," as Wikipedia admin Mathias Schindler says.
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2007-01-29-n19.html

[Jeremy Pepper]

Thanks for another Micropersuasion Deep Thoughts (TM) piece.

Goes as well as your other deep think pieces, and just as good as Jack Handey's. And, if cash-flow is really a problem, what about some Google Ads? I looked up Zyrtec today, and wow, could some Google Ads have punched up that page.

[Mike Abundo]

AdSense on Wikipedia would solve this problem. Google would, in effect, pay Wikipedia's bills -- and then some.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of pushback against ads among Wikipedians.

[Russell Page]

I don't think Google should do anything of the sort. These wikipedia pages only have relevancy in Google because Google gives them the relevancy. Should Google pay Digg for the traffic it sends? YouTube? You? No. And while they aren't "non-profit" it's the principle behind the idea of doing it because Google feeds the traffic. Google has no responsibility whatsoever to help Wikipedia.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you kind of flip-flopping back and forth as well? Aren't you the one that made the claim that Wikipedia was a threat to Google? (I laughed when I read that). Now your saying Google should help wikipedia?

[Matt]

Do we know Wikipedia plans to operate as a non-profit forever? Should Wikipedia move to a for-profit model, Google shareholders wouldn't be too excited about the company writing checks to a site that could easily emerge as a commercial competitor.

[drmike]

Google already tried this with DMOZ. Look how screwed up that is.

[cnidog]

A one way transaction where Google pays Wikipedia would be totally wrong. However, there should be huge incentives on the part of both companies to find a solution where both come out winners.

Wikipedia benefits immensely from Google's traffic (i.e. increased readership leads to increased participation that in turn leads to better articles and more donations - many sites pay for this kind of exposure on Google).

Google also benefits immensely from the new, credible and authoritative content that is constantly being produced on Wikipedia (i.e. as more content is made available through Google, more people will use Google as their search engine of choice, which in turn leads to more revenue for Google).

Perhaps there might be a way for Google to pay for access to Wikipedia's information in return for the right to use the information in innovative ways. Google could not hope to recreate Wikipedia's database on its own and Google already pays for access to other types of cost intensive information, such as the geographic data behind Google Maps. Google's business model is to add value to such data in a way that generates additional income for Google. I, like many others, love the fact that there are no ads on Wikipedia, so a solution like this could be beneficial to wikipedians as well.

[Bro B]

Wikipedia is a cesspool of misinformation and in no way furthers human knowledge. It's an encyclopedia like reality TV is reality. Google is just a big billboard for whomever can afford it. Both of them erode the Internet and both of them should be shut down. Wikipedia pops up in every Google search to give some kind of credence to Google, even though it's the lowest common denominator of free information. Google only wants to deliver accurate info that you have to pay for, so they can say they shoveled drooling dumbasses like us to cash producing websites. There can be no accurate and free trade of information on the Internet so long as Google and Wikipedia exist.

[SlimVirgin]

Although I edit a lot on Wikipedia, I do find the Google results annoying. I have rigged up a grease monkey app that adds "-site:wikipedia.org" to every Google search I make.