Dominic Rushe
2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now
ON the front of Jimmy Wales’s black T-shirt is a fist holding what looks like a hand grenade, but which on closer inspection turns out to be a computer mouse.
The shirt was given to him by students in Budapest, where Wales was doing a talk about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia he founded. “I like to wear it if I’m giving a corporate talk. It scares them a little,” he said last week. “I like being disruptive. It’s fun.”
In six years, Wikipedia has emerged as one of the internet’s biggest phenomena, altering the way people get information and students and schoolchildren do their homework. Whether Wikipedia is a good thing depends on whom you talk to.
Today Wikipedia contains 8.2m articles, in 253 languages, on subjects ranging from Britney Spears to quantum physics. The venerable Encyclopaedia Britan-nica, 238 years old this year, contains about 500,000 topics in its 32 volumes assembled by 19 full-time editors and more than 4,000 expert contributors. It costs $1,395 (£691) in America, plus shipping cost of about $92. Wikipedia is free.
Like the rabble-rousing Wales, Wikipedia has attracted controversy. Inaccuracies abound and partisan editing of entries is not uncommon. But Wales believes the Wiki community can police and correct its excesses.
Now Wales plans to apply Wikipedia’s experience to internet search. In December, he will launch Wikia Search, a search engine to compete with giants such as Google and Yahoo. The project could prove even more controversial than Wikipedia.
“Somebody said to me, your reputation is assured with Wikipedia; this could be a big failure. Why take the risk? But I don’t even think in those terms. Search is something lots of people are concerned about and we can make a change,” said Wales.
Again Wikia will attempt to harness the knowledge of people around the world. Google, Yahoo and their rivals fiercely guard the secrets of their search engines. Wikia’s search programs will be open for anyone to edit if they have sufficient pro-gramming knowledge. Users will also rank websites in the hope of arriving at the best possible combination of human and computer ranking of searches.
“When I started Wikipedia there were three articles. It was supposed to be an encyclopedia but it was totally empty. Nobody cared back then and nobody was watching,” said Wales.
“When we launch the search engine everyone will think we are going to launch some Goog-le-killing device on day one. That’s just not true or possible.” However, Wales does believe that within three years Wikia could rival the top search engines.
Can the wisdom of crowds trump the power of Google? Not likely, said Danny Sullivan, edi-tor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, an influential trade website. “Wikipedia is a destination site. Search isn’t a destination,” he said. People choose Google, or other search engines, because of the quality of the results and it will be hard for Wikia to compete with the quality of Google.
Sullivan compares Wales’s efforts with those of Jason Cala-canis, founder of Mahalo.com, another “human-powered search engine”. He was heavily hyped in tech circles, but Mahalo has yet to make an impact.
However, Wales argues that his “man vs machine” model will eventually deliver better results than Google. Used alone, mathematical search formulas such as Google’s do not produce consistently relevant results, he said.
“People think of search as some kind of computer function but it’s really editorial – it’s journalism. If I type ‘Martha Stewart’ into a search engine and I get 10 results back, those results are an editorial judgment whether or not it’s made by a computer.” People, he said, were better at refining those editorial judgments than machines. It’s not a new idea – others have tried to assault Google’s dominance by offering a more “personal” touch – but given Wikipedia’s success, and Wales’s determination, Wikia will be one to watch.
Unlike Wikipedia, a registered charity, Wikia will be for-profit, funded by Wales’s Wikia Inc and Amazon.com, plus $4m from Bessemer Venture Partners, and Omidyar Network (owned by Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay).
Wales is a committed libertarian, so given his belief in enlightened self-interest why does he think Wikipedia’s community will be keen to help out on a commercial project like Wikia?
People become involved in Wikipedia in the same way they get involved in playing sports at the weekend, said Wales. “People don’t say to them, ‘You play basketball for free? People get paid a lot of money to do that.’ That’s a silly thing to say. But people say, ‘Gee, you write encyclopedia articles for fun. People get paid to write for encyclopedias.’ Well it’s true there are people who write professionally but there are other types of writing that can be done for a hobby.” Wikipedia allows people to share their knowledge and passions and, for some, sharing that knowledge is reward enough. With Wikia he believes the same “fun” element will apply.
He also thinks many people believe Google and Yahoo have too much power. Given the huge numbers of people who turn to internet search as their first point of reference, Wales said it was “concerning when we have only two or three sources for that editorial judgment. Philosophically it’s not healthy for democracy.”
Andrew Keen, author and longstanding critic of Wikipedia, said the search project was “fraught with commercial and ethical dilemmas”. He said Wikia was “capitalism dressed up as socialism”, and that it was wrong to expect people to contribute for nothing to a scheme in which Wales is likely to be the biggest benefactor. “And as long as anonymous sources rank websites, we will not know whose interests they serve,” he said.
Wales last saw Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin this summer at a weekend retreat in Napa Valley. The pair seemed friendly enough, said Wales. “These guys aren’t going to end up being paupers no matter what. I don’t think they are too worried about me.” Not yet.
FREE FACTS
WIKIPEDIA is a noncommercial website run by the Wikipedia Foundation, a nonprofit organisation.
Its mission is to bring free knowledge to everyone on the planet.
You can’t actually change anything in Wikipedia; you can only add to it. Every time an article is changed, the new version and a copy of the old version are kept.
Some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are complete rubbish.
Contributors are unpaid and must follow a neutral point of view.
Jimmy Wales acts as final arbiter, but his influence is based on respect, not power.
Source: Wikipedia
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
Have you ever dreamed of owning your own racehorse or a beautiful painting?
Enjoy comfort, safety, space and great design. Plus enter our great competition
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Are you California dreaming? Explore the wonders of the Golden State. Also enter our fantastic competition
Do you have what it takes to be a Times photographer?
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
Find out to make the most of your money with our wealth management guides
Need help with your property? We have an entire how to guide - buying, selling, letting, moving, to help you
We are seeking entries for the inaugural Sunday Times Best Green Companies Awards
Enjoy some wonderful inspiring wildlife moments
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget

Find a course, arrange a game and save money
2007/07
£57,500
South East England
2007/07
£40,995
South East England
2006/06
£41,995
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
£40-55k+benefits+uncapped commission
Morgan Keating
South East
Up to £30,000
GLE
London
£
c£75,000 + executive benefits
Morgan Keating
London and South
Unpaid with travel expenses
Network Rail
Globrix, the property search engine
Visit Times Online Property for homes for sale or rent
Residential development site with planning permission
£1,500,000
Mortgages, bank accounts & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Dinarobin Hotel Golf & Spa 7 nights
From £1830 per person – saving £530.
Walking & multi-activity holidays in Cauterets. Stylish self-catering apartments.
From 350€ for 7 nights.
SAVE 25% on Sandals Luxury Resorts
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Ego out. Knowledge in,
E., Phx.,
Google already has an experiment with people labeling pictures. People are presented with a random picture. If another random "player" chooses the same label, it's added. Extending ingenious strategies such as this into the future may allow Google to add meaningful rankings, etc., by people.
Authoritative information is already out there. If many people link to something, Google ups its rating. So people have been involved in Google rankings from the beginning. And there's more to come. Time will tell.
Bob from Boston, Boston, MA
Bionic is better? Yahoo Search is Bionic and it is a disaster. After Yahoo Search stopped using Google, they merged the editors from the Yahoo Directory with the Inktomi algorithm. Those same Yahoo editors then began to purge Yahoo Search of sites they deemed "unworthy" of Yahoo's standards and people began to look elsewhere for better (unedited) results.
SFWriter777, Los Angeles, California
Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. At Wikipedia, facts are subordinate to consensus, and its administrators are largely a group of teenagers -- literally, most of them are minors -- with no background or training either in the subjects dealt with by articles or in the administration of an information-gathering enterprise.
There are many documented cases of corporate and government meddling with Wikipedia articles, along with grossly inappropriate administrative actions, including the outright falsification of article content and personal biographical information by Wikipedia's senior administrators.
Be very, very careful with respect to anything Wikipedia touches.
Charles Wilson, Seattle, WA
I agree with SFWriter, it can be very biased and impossible to police 100%.
DMOZ is proof positive that relying on volunteers to police themselves when most(not all) become editors to promote their own interests and only do the required editing to remain active.
Yahoo! directory is multitudes superior in the fact that there is a high price of admission and the sites are evaluated by completely non biased editors.
Anyhow a Wikipedia search engine kind of doesn't make sense since they already dominate the top three search engine's results.
It would be neat to have an alternative, but if I want pseudo facts I can find and search Wikipedia just dandy on my own.
I also like the quote âfraught with commercial and ethical dilemmasâ. Look at The Mozzila Foundation. That must be the highest profiting non profit Foundation ever imagined.
DANN, Chicago,
It is very disconcerting that all of this article seems to confuse "Wikipedia" with "Wikia". How are the two related? I thought that they are completely separate (which is what Gil Penchina has said in interviews), but now it seems that there is no boundary between the personnel who staff both sites. This seems to be on the border of corruption, to me.
Boris Fermat, Prague, Czech Republic
DMOZ and the Yahoo Directory are 100% human-powered. Google is 100% machine-powered. The Wikia search engine is bionic.
In the long-term, bionic is better.
Tom, Liverpool,
Human editing is too biased and does not work for search engines. One only has to look at the failures of DMOZ and the Yahoo Directory.
SFWriter777, Los Angeles, California
Contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid? That's news to me!
Gregory Kohs, West Chester, PA