It was speculated somewhere that Wikipedia might block Google from searching as part of promoting the Wikipedia search.

Aside from the suspicion that the Wikia search function will be a clunky heap of junk and will be unable to compete with the mighty Google, and not being accessible from Google would be a slow and painful suicide, would Wikipedia have the right under GFDL to stop Google using the articles?

(At least Google doesn't trash articles while it is scanning them, unlike those noble fellows at Veropedia).

Presumably, if they were so minded, Google could just create a bunch of temporary unsigned Knols out of Wikipedia anyway, ready for someone to approve or reject as appropriate.

Google doesn't use the articles, any more than a public library uses books.

Google's patrons use the article, just as the patrons of a public library use library books.

Both Google and the public library make it practical for the consumer to find the items of interest. Google operates like an electronic card catalog.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization for "Education and Internet Teaching" and it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to depart from the normative expectations of a tax-exempt non-profit educational enterprise.

This was mostly tongue in cheek.



They'd have the right under GFDL to put Google in the robots.txt file. Google could probably legally ignore the robots.txt file, but they wouldn't.



Let's just go with the assumption that my comment was completely tongue-in-cheek.

Which, according to Wikipedia means it was said "half seriously". So completely tongue-in-cheek would mean I was 50% serious. Mostly tongue-in-cheek would be more like 45% serious. I guess by Wikipedia's definition my comment was 196% tongue-in-cheek. As is this paragraph.

I can cope with that I'm a simpleton who can't cope with the metaphysical arguments (or whatever sort they are) elsewhere, so I worry about simple, easy things. It helps me understand that whatever Wikipedia want to happen with "their" content, there isn't much they can do about it.

The advantage of worrying about simple things is that you might be less likely to miss the obvious - it's easier to understand that some of the admins have lost the plot because they have complicated heads.

I think the misconception here is that people actually click on Wikipedia to do a search. That is far from the truth. Most people click on Google to search and Google allows for WP items to show up on top. For that they get paid.

When the Google system is in place and they begin "Knol" subscriptions, they will, indeed, allow for their own system to come to the surface, first.

Wikipedia gets the vast majority of it's traffic from Google searches. The people at WP are very concerned about this little adventure that Google has going. I would say they (WP) will be forced to merge or "be acquired."

It's not clear to me that Wikipedia has any assets worth acquiring (at least by Google).

But they have such a high pagerank!

Where's the emoticon with the tongue in its cheek?