Comments on: Wikipedia’s Criterion: Google

By: Chinese Qualification Verification

Chinese Qualification Verification — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:09:24 +0000

Chinese Qualification Verification…

Need to check Records of University and College Entrance Examination from China? Verifile China provides an official verification report from the Chinese Ministry of Education….

By: alessandro

alessandro — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:16:51 +0000

A
Could give insight into how wiki editors judge different internet sources. When do they judge an internet source worthy to extract date from for Wikipedia?

B
Could give insight about how active the dutch wikicommunity is. How fast will they actualy verify sources that arent easy to access through the web?

So i think both ways can lead to interesting insights.

By: Arno

Arno — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:51:44 +0000

Next time, I can do two things:
a. Put down some information on sources that Google will see (other websites, blogs, communities, etc) and refer to these sources
b. Use sources that excist, but that don’t include the information, books for example.

a is a challenge b is more easy, but in some way illegal

By: alessandro

alessandro — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:13:19 +0000

Lets not jump to conclusions too fast here.
The reason given was:
There is nothing on it on Google
AND
the entry has no sources what so ever.
Thats not the same as: Its not on Google so it doesnt exist.
I think the entry was deleted rightfully. Altho the editor could have used the more appropriate qualification ‘unverifiable’ instead of ‘nonesense’. Anyway, congrats to the Wiki community, for now. But dont give up yet Arno. Fake some convincing sources and lets see what happends. Also you might want to consider using an other Wiki profile, maybe this otherwise affects the credibility of your next entries.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:59:28 +0000

This is so frustrating. I agree with Hannah its insane for information to be deleted just because it doesn’t have an existence on Google!!

By: Hannah Biemold

Hannah Biemold — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:13:59 +0000

So maybe we have to create the sources ourselves first and if they are being found by Google then the hoax has more chance on survival? I think there is so many knowledge that’s not to be found on Google as many websites are hardly indexed or could be secured. I like the argument ‘if it’s not on Google, it doesn’t exist’. So what about people who are not on Google? Do they still exist or are they just ghosts of our imagination?
On the next hoax we should collaborate and edit the entry so it looks like many people believe in it…

By: erik

erik — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:35:41 +0000

We had exactly the same last year :) Have a look at our previous posts about it (in chronological order): http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/?s=++spinplant&searchsubmit=. Also, the nettime mailinglist has some more info.