Dvorak on Google and Wikipedia 449
cryptoluddite writes "PC Magazine has an article by John C. Dvorak expanding on the community discussion of Google's offer for free web hosting of Wikipedia. Those against the deal point out that Google may be planning to co-opt the encyclopedia as Googlepedia (by restricting access to the complete database). In a revealing speech given by the Google founders, Larry Page says he would 'like to see a model where you can buy into the world's content. Let's say you pay $20 per month.' Should public domain information be free?" It's a pretty scary scenario painted, but one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days. Update: 02/16 20:16 GMT by T : This story links inadvertently to the second page of the column; here's a link to the first page.
Is this just alarmist talk from a doomsayer? (Score:5, Informative)
Can they do that? The wikipedia is governed by the GNU Free Documentation License . . .wikipedia details here [wikipedia.org].
This is why Jimbo didn't want the details to leak (Score:5, Informative)
The deal in the short to medium term with wikipedia is expected to be the provision of about a dozen caching servers. No actual database work would be done by google. There is already a small (3) squid [squid-cache.org] cluster in Paris [wikimedia.org] that does this for users in the UK and France saving on some transatlantic bandwidth.
Google Groups is still Usenet... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fine with Google offering a faster mirror/interface to Wikipedia, because mirroring of information is always good. From the last /. article on the subject, I gathered that Google would offer their faster processing power and ub3r bandwidth to Wikipedia....but that doesn't necessarily mean they get to hijack the content....they'd just provide a faster way to get to information that's mirrored elsewhere.
Dirty tricks 101: quotes out of context (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing "revealing" about that article is that Page continues "Somebody else needs to figure out how to reward all the people who create the things that you use. " In other words, what Page would like to see is a system where "users" pay for accessing content and "contributors" are paid for providing it.
This
To the editors: when you see the words may be planning, just ignore the submission in the future. TIA.
Re:Is this just alarmist talk from a doomsayer? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
Except Google is providing useful services that people want to use.
For free.
We get value out of using their services.
The advertisers get value out of the exposure they get, which is great, because the advertising still isn't annoying.
Google isn't squashing competitors with shady business practices, they are simply providing the best, most innovative services for the time being.
Re:Is this just alarmist talk from a doomsayer? (Score:2, Informative)
--From the GNU FDL
So, Google could not legally prevent access, no could they prevent content from being mirrored. Don't like Google? Then help maintain a wiki mirror elsewhere.
Seems to me Google just wants to co-opt an information resource that has become extremely popular of late. They'd like to be to serve it up as they do now, but with Google ads sprinkeled in the sidebar. Since I currently ignore the Google ads now in their searches and in my Gmail account, this wouldn't be an issue for me personally.
Re:Licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
From the speech in question (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me that they're talking about copyrighted content here. Rather than concocting a plan to bundle up free content and make people pay Google for access, it looks to me like Page was actually talking about reasonable means of access to copyrighted information.
This is all fud (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dvorak is stale (Score:3, Informative)
> he's another has-been from a past era trying to pimp his FUD and general tech conspiracy theories. IMO, if you
> steadily bet AGAINST Dvorak you'll come out ahead over the long run.
You got it in one. Dvorak must have remembered that he had a column due, indulged in his intoxicant of choice, picked some random news items & used them as an excuse to indulge in some superifical reflections.
Speaking as someone who has contributed for a long time to Wikipedia, there is no simple way that Google could take control of Wikipedia. (There are days when I wonder if *anyone* could control Wikipedia.) Because its content is licensed under a form of the GPL (as well as many parts under the Creative Commons license), if you can read it, you can copy it & fork it. Making a mirror of Wikipedia is not only possible, it has been done: there are countless websites that mirror Wikipedia's content, some more up to date than others, some using the material as a starting place for their own encyclopedias. Further, many of the non-English Wikipedias have their own communities & are establishing their own servers; even if Google somehow got control of the main servers in Florida, it would be trivial for the groups in Europe to immediately fork.
And community is an important part of this. Were Google to start limiting access to Wikipedia, *many* volunteers would leave -- either to a fork, or stop contributing entirely. In a very short time, what was left of the original Wikipedia site would have minimal value, ravaged by bitrot, out-of-date information, & unchecked vandalism.
IMHO, the best Google could do here is offer a better interface to Wikipedia than Wikipedia has. The ability to edit Wikipedia will undoubtedly remain on their servers; to attempt to share this ability would result either in a technological mess or a fork.
Lastly, having exchanged emails with Jimbo Wales, the de facto leader of this project & having read much of what he has written about Wikipedia, I sincerely doubt he has any interest in converting it into a for-profit Internet venture. For one thing, he has been working to push the legal responsibility off of his shoulders & onto an international board of directors. And for another, he seems to be having too much fun travelling around the world on behalf of Wikipedia & its related projects: he clearly gets far more satisfaction from this being open & free to everyone, than he would if he converted this project into a big pile of cash. At present, more people listen & value what Jimbo has to say than what Dvorak writes; that fact alone must stick in this has-been Ziff-Davis' columnist's craw & color anything Dvorak has to say about Wikipedia.
Geoff
Re:Licensing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"should public domain information be free?" (Score:1, Informative)
Barnes and Nobles actually sells dozens of public domain works in nice matching set hard covers. Anybody can get the works for free online but having it in such a nicely bound package makes it worth the $5-10 they charge.
Re:"should public domain information be free?" (Score:2, Informative)
It's quite different from the GPL. Public domain works are free for any use and not bound by restrictions (typically). You can do things with Public Domain software that you can't with GPL. It typically means there is no license attached other than a disclaimer saying "Public domain".
paranoid and poorly researched (Score:3, Informative)
The most glaring omission Dvorak makes is the simple fact that due to the license Wikipedia uses, that it would be impossible for any one company to control it. If the 'end' were really near, somebody with better intentions could just download the *whole* Wikipedia and host it. But it would never come to that because the foundation would not allow it ; its very mission is to ensure free access to the projects it runs.
I'm very disappointed in Dvorak.
I totally agree (was Re:Total FUD) (Score:3, Informative)
The main point that needs to be looked at is the fact that Wikipedia has been experiencing some absolutely explosive growth in demand from people both trying to add articles, as well as people simply accessing it, like numerous cross-links to Wikipedia mentioned in various
The current proposed budget for maintaining the servers [wikimedia.org] is on the order of $130,000 and all of that comes from voluntary donations of the community. (BTW, please give some $$$ [wikimediafoundation.org] if you are a regular user of Wikipedia).
Google has quietly given an offer to not only co-locate some Wikimedia servers at their facilities, but also to pay for the servers themselves as part of the general Google server farm.
From what I've seen, nothing in the proposal is to have Google "take over" the Google content. Just like Google uses data [google.com] in the Open Directory Project [dmoz.org] for their google website directory, they are free to use the content of Wikipedia as long as they comply with the terms of the Gnu Free Documentation License [gnu.org].
This is not a way to "lock up" the content, but rather a way to browse Wikipedia in a way where you can be assured that the bandwidth is available to view the content. Basically, a mirror of the Wikipedia project. This is not even a new idea. [wikipedia.org]
I would imagine that the fine points of negotiation right now are that links to add content would be folded back into the main-line Wikipedia database. This is just like the Open Directory Project has been doing for a number of years, so the preceedence is definitely there, even for Google. I don't deny that there is a valid business rationale for Google to host Wikipedia, but don't read more into it than is there: Google offering to host Wikipedia content.
John Dvorak absolutely does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, or even as a member of the community in general, and his comments are just to inflame issues from an otherwise uninterested technology journalist just trying to improve the sales of the publications he works for. Having been through similar publicity flare-ups in the past with other "open source" groups, Mr. Dvorak is not showing behavior consistant with even mediocre journalists that would at least contact members of the community he is reporting about. He is just doing raw speculation and that is it.
This article is disingenuous and I hope that Dvorak gets taken to task for the comments that he has made. I also hope that people like him don't kill the good-faith proposal that frankly the Wikipedia could really use, nor "poison" the water of other potential offers to help out in relieving the crushing bandwidth needs of the Wikipedia and other related projects. It is articles like this that give journalists an awful name and destroy what is left of credibility to their profession.
Re:Harsh on Google (Score:3, Informative)
There's a leap of logic... well, I guess if it's on the web, I can just download it? E-Donkey doesn't host everything for free. ;)
Here's a little more substantial info: http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html [google.com]
The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales. You may not take the results from a Google search and reformat and display them, or mirror the Google home page or results pages on your Web site. You may not "meta-search" Google. If you want to make commercial use of the Google Services, you must enter into an agreement with Google to do so in advance.
What really happened that week (Score:3, Informative)
So, we left that week with much improved load balancing for the Apaches. Much more consistent page load times now.