Wikia Search Launches Alpha, Not Ready Yet

babooo404 writes "Jimmy Wales' latest project, Search Wikia has launched into alpha this morning. Most reviews have been negative. The system is a 'social search' and uses the Nutch search algorithm. You can friend people along with creating profiles, and the system uses a Wikipedia-style format for 'mini articles.'"

Re:Work on wikipedia's search first

[LMacG]

1) www.google.com
2) (your search term here) site:wikipedia.org
3) go

Presto.

Re:Which part of ALPHA...

[kebes]

Agreed. This is a very early prototype, and should be treated as such. I think people's expectations are quite high because of how large and complex Wikipedia currently is. They forget what Wikipedia looked like when it first launched! [archive.org]

In the review entry, Jimmy Wales posted a comment that responds [techcrunch.com] to these criticisms quite accurately:

Release early, release often.

It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.

When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!

So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.

We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.

Re:no go

[garcia]

You need to read some of Jimmy's comments on one of the blogs linked in the summary, especially the one I have copy/pasted below... The most important part is the second paragraph and while I am no Wikipedia fan and certainly agree with your comments that protections need to occur from what I assume you mean by "editors running wild," I think what he says below is very important for this new project!

From here [techcrunch.com]:

January 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Release early, release often.

It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.

When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!

So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.

We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.

Be careful...

[christopherfinke]

Not only are the reviews bad, but using it could get you banned from Facebook. [chrisfinke.com]

Re:Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with googl

[ajs]

Ok, let me see if I understand this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason. But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.

Wow, so much wrong.... so little space.

Let me wee if I can begin.... nope... trying again...

OK, so the WikiMedia Foundation [wikimedia.org], of which Wikipedia is one (and the best known) project, includes Wikibooks [wikibooks.org], Wiktionary [wiktionary.org], and many more.

Wikia isn't any of those.

Wikia is a project of Wikia, Inc. [wikia.com] So you're WAY off in your throwing stones at Wikipedia over Wikia's search... the two have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that Wikia search will almost certainly index Wikipedia and Wikipedia will almost certainly have an entry for Wikia search.

Now, on to your proofs beef. Proofs are tough. Sometimes overviews of them can be important, but they're fundamental examples of primary sources [wikipedia.org], which are not nearly as useful to an encyclopedia as secondary sources that give the context within which the proof is notable.

Wikimedia != Wikipedia != Wikia

[DragonWriter]

Ok, let me see if I understand this.

You don't.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason.

Wikipedia can (and does) have proofs (e.g., in the article on Arrow's Impossibility Theorem [wikipedia.org].) Usually, in-depth reference is out-of-scope, and appropriate for other Wikimedia projects which may be linked from Wikipedia articles, like Wikibooks (if it is contributor-developed) or Wikisource (for source texts that can be reproduced without copyright problems.)

But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.

Wikia [wikia.com] is not the same thing as Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], even though Jimmy Wales is centrally involved in both. Wikia competing with Google or Facebook is not Wikipedia (or even Wikimedia [wikimedia.org]) doing so.

Re:Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with googl

[anthony_dipierro]

If nothing else, the oft criticized, and of dubious history, Jimbo Wales is firmly at the helm of both. He is very much in control of both.

He's actually not at the helm of either, though he exerts a lot of influence over Wikipedia.