Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

Who needs the standard obsessively glowing Michael TechCrunch Arrington Web 2.0 startup co-hype machine! NOT Jimmy Wales. After all, Wales underscores Wikia Search “is not being built for him.”

It is indeed ironic to read Arrington decry of the alpha launch:”Jimmy Wales hype machine promised a human powered search engine that could take on Google”:

The search results are poor and thin, as would be expected if not for the huge expectations that have been set.

Really? Wales disclaims the alpha launch quality of the search results, front and center:

Wikia is working to develop and popularize a freely licensed (open source) search engine. What you see here is our first alpha release. We are aware that the quality of the search results is low..

Wales also goes on to solicit humans for help with his “project to build a human-powered search engine”:

Right now, the most important thing you can do is help with the “miniarticles” that appear at the top of popular search terms.

Arrington nevertheless dismisses Wikia Search’s request for participation:

Beyond the poor search results, there is really no “human” element to the engine at all.

Eventually, users will be able to edit and improve results for searches they are interested in. But currently, all users can do is add keywords to their profile that they might someday be interested in, and/or contribute to a “mini-article” that appears at the top of search results for queries.

BUT, how is functionality enabling individuals to contribute content NOT a human element?

Wikia Search’s solicitation for mini-article contributions is similar to Arrington’s TechCrunch 40 partner Jason Calacanis’ Mahalo, self-branded a “human-powered search engine.” Mahalao has benefitted from Arrington hype from the get go, along with search startup contender Powerset–supposedly launched at TechCrunch 40 four months ago, although still not open for searching. The latest non-existent search startup to get the Arrington hype stamp of approval: Rich Skrenta’s puported “Blekko.”

(SEE: Mahalo: Will Calacanis Win the Billion Dollar Startup Lottery in 2008? and Rich Skrenta: Blekko ‘Absurd’ Search Startup Disses King Google)

Powerset on its supposed TechCrunch launch:

We realize that most companies wait to launch until they have a completely usable beta version. Because Powerset is a natural language search engine, the earlier we have input from the best natural language processing units on the planet – the brains of humans – the quicker our search engine will improve.

Mahalo is also a work in human progress. A search at Mahalo for “reverse engineering” yields a page of search engine results, courtsey of Mahalo’s arch enemy Google! Plus the disclaimer: “We haven’t written a result page for ‘reverse engineering’ yet,” but be sure to request one. Better yet, Calacanis’ Mahalao solicits “Be the first to recomend a link form ‘reverse engineering’.

Arrington is nevertheless firm, about Jimmy Wales :

Wikia search would be a disappointment even without the massive hype we’ve had to endure. And taking that hype into account, this product is an inexcusable waste of time.

Such an accusation could be levied against many of the massively hyped Web 2.0 “cool apps” paraded by TechCrunch daily and “endured” by all. After all, Tim Web 2.0 O’Reilly believes TechCrunch faves to be “completely unimportant”:

TechCrunch is the #1 site on the Techmeme leaderboard, yet most of what it covers will be forgotten not merely in years but in months, and have proven to be completely unimportant: the froth of me-too company creation around ideas and trends that as yet are quite immature and poorly understood. (Michael Arrington himself told me that most of the companies he’s covered since starting Techcrunch “have just faded away”.)

(SEE: Web 2.0 Startups: Will Geek Chumby ‘Fade Away’ in 2008? and Digg: TechCrunch Bails on Arrington Web 2.0 Fave and  Edgeio Web 2.0 Bomb: Michael TechCrunch Arrington Cheers $5 million Startup Loss)

Google’s Matt Cutts giddily jumps on the blogosphere’s who needs Wikia Search bandwagon, cunningly goading the SEO community–which bows to King Google–to tear the Wales initiative apart.

Cutts ought to look within, though. For starters, he can read my primer on how Google Search is on the endangered species list: Google Knol: The End of Google.com, NOT Wikipedia 

PLUS, Cutts can learn about how Google is behind the image search times by reading my exclusive scoop: EverNote Beats Google: AIR Search Inside Images, NOW!

ALSO, Cutts may want to know Why Google Worship is a BAD Call in 2008, despite Jeff Jarvis’ Google religion.

MORE: Is SEO the New Internet Porn? Lessons From Ning and Google and Reach Local Advertising? How Google Squeezes SEMs and AdWords Buyers

PLUS: Data Portability ‘Magic’? Australian Faraday Media Pushes Web Agenda in U.S.

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Analyze Wikipedia? Why bother. Jimmy Wales poudly underscores the 2 billion “encyclopedia” entries in English are the product of a “no rules,” truth is optional operating philosophy.

Virgil Griffith’s WikiScanner aims to bring sunlight to ”anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations,” plus “become the number one hit on Google for ‘virgil’ AND: “to create minor public relations disasters for companires and organizations I dislike.”

At least Virgil is open about his personal agenda! Are Wikipedians?

The morass of mis, dis and non-information that is the Wikipedia “enclyclopedia that anyone can edit” is a given, given that:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules,
Perfection is not required,
Articles can be changed by anyone,
No original research,
Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth,
Articles may contain unencyclopedic content, vandalism, false, debatable information…

Wikipedia even disclaims itself!:

Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information. Wikipedia’s radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite. Many contributors do not yet comply fully with key policies, or may add information without citable sources.

many articles start their lives as partisan, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate and argument, that they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may for a while become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time — months perhaps — to extricate themselves and regain a better balanced consensus. In part, this is because Wikipedia operates an internal resolution process when editors cannot agree on content and approach, and such issues take time to come to the attention of more experienced editors.

The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have. However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn. Some articles contain statements and claims which have not yet been fully cited. Others will later have entire new sections added. Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded, and may be removed or expounded.

Can a Wiki Scanner turn Wikipedia around? NO!

ALSO: Does USC Annenberg OJR Want Old Media Journalists to Shut Up? and HP Cloudprint vs. Google Gmail Paper: Web to Print Heats Up

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN