Just install the extension and each time you perform a Google search, your results will come up as usual, but the right half of the screen will be populated with the Wikipedia entry of whatever you just searched — not only is it better than ads, but it kills two birds with one stone more often than not.
It may be more truthiness than truth, but Wikipedia still has some standards. The free, user-generated encyclopedia makes sure any mention of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president is deleted from his page within minutes. The argument that Obama is not a natural US citizen has been rejected by the Supreme Court and Wikipedia it seems.
But some fear the lookout against offensive content goes too far. Neither Jeremiah Wright or former domestic terrorist William Ayers show up on Obama's page, even though his connection with the two men gained a lot of attention during the campaign.
Wikipedia, a site that embodies and perhaps produces conventional wisdom, is monitored by trusted community members who have access to extra tools that allow them to delete certain entries. Do you trust them?
As the recession has affected consumer buying behaviors, the candy business is seeking to adapt. Mars-owned Skittles is no exception. In an attempt to reach out to the social media set, the fruity candy has completely rebranded its homepage.
Visitors to Skittles' main page are redirected to a search of the word "Skittles" on the microblogging service Twitter. The videos point to wacky Skittles commercials posted on YouTube; a "friends" section connects users to a fan page on social media giant Facebook; an image section leads to Skittles pictures on photo-sharing site Flickr; and those looking for information on Skittles products are connected to user-contributed online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
"Skittles lives in a world that is unexpected," said Carole Walker, VP of integrated marketing communications for Skittles. "We are leveraging what we think are the key consumer social media touch points."
The Skittles site requires users to enter their date of birth, as it doesn't advertise to users under the age of 12. Do you think this strategy to target older audiences will prove to be successful? Or is it too risky to depend on user-generated content? Does it change the way you view Skittles?
I feel like I have such a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia — the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I love how it's easy to access and offers quick facts about everything and anything, but I'm wary about trusting it as a credible source of information. I think most of you feel the same way as me, since 66 percent of you said you trust it to an extent. Well what if Wikipedia info was taught the way it's presented on the website? Here's what would happen.
Today John McCain announced he has picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. In its morning broadcast, NPR reported that McCain's choice showed up on Wikipedia (and the AP) before it had been officially confirmed as fact.
This isn't exactly an irregular event in wiki world, considering the content is created by millions of users, but it says a great deal about the power of the Internet. In the hours following the official announcement, Wikipedia users frantically updated and edited Palin's entry, adding nasty descriptive words after her name (I took a screenshot of one, but it's honestly so lowbrow I don't want to share it).
I use wikis as one of my first stop spots to learn about people and random topics, but I can't say I take anything I read as verifiable fact. How and when do you trust wikis?
Google has just launched a new product called Knol, a website which contains a few hundred articles actually called "Knols." It's similar to Wikipedia in that it's open to the public and encourages "experts" on various topics to contribute their knowledge online, although it differs by making the author of the Knols sign their real names — unlike the anonymity of Wikipedia.
Google will actually go to the trouble of verifying a writer's identity, either by credit card or phone, which is said to only take 20 seconds. I guess once you can see the name behind the content, it definitely adds some reputability to the information being presented.
So far, I'm seeing quite the abundance of health topic entries, but hopefully in due time the subject matter will expand.
Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's become an utter must-have site. Whether I'm at home or at work, if I'm at my computer, I visit Wikipedia a few times a day, at least, to look up a person, thing, whatever. Now, Apple has made it more convenient to get to — you can access it from the Dictionary application!
If you have Leopard in OS X, you'll notice that there's now a Wikipedia tab. It gets even faster — access the Dictionary from Spotlight, or, in an email or other text document, Control click or right click on the word and select "Look Up in Dictionary." Wiki away!
The biographies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are under siege. Whether we like it or not, tons of us turn to Wikipedia for digestible background information. Because any of us can edit an entry, we all hold the power of truth in our hands. With that much influence at stake, why wouldn't a prankster, or worse, a political opponent, try to include not so flattering, and not so true, information?
Luckily two unpaid and unofficial wonks are on the case. NPR profiled Jonathan Schilling and Tina Vozick, Clinton and Obama supporters, respectively. These two dedicated defenders of truth, and their candidates, police the pages around the clock, protecting their candidates in this Wiki-warfare.
Sometimes the most offensive material pops up at inconvenient times. For an example, read more
Last week, I was headed to the grocery store and drove past one of the best Bloody Mary spots in the city. I saw the line of people and knew I had to have one. So while at the store, I picked up some tomato juice, celery, and olives — I was positive I had everything else at home — and rushed straight home.
When I asked YumJimmy which recipe I should make, he told me to try Wikipedia. He said, "Well if it's on Wikipedia it must be the 'classic' one right?" I couldn't really argue with this, so I decided to go for it. It ended up being a delicious — and yes "classic" — version. I opted to add a bit more spice — more cracked pepper and a dash or two more of Tabasco — but flavor it to suit your needs. If you want to see what goes into the Wiki version of a Bloody Mary, just read more
With 7.9 million articles in 253 languages and a tag-line that reads "the free encyclopedia that anyone can change," it is pretty much guaranteed that all Wikipedia edits and content changes cannot be monitored.
According to The New York Times, there were unexplained edits to a Wikipedia entry including the SeaWorld theme parks to change the word “orcas” to “killer whales," which was considered more accurate. These changes were found to originate from the computer of Anheuser-Busch, SeaWorld’s owner. Dozens of other similar edits have been found through WikiScanner, a website that is used to trace the digital fingerprints left behind from Wikipedia edits and find out where they originated.