FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Wiki .v. Google





wumingsden
Which site do you think is more reliable?

I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.


I compare them through the fact that they are both on the net, and it is a fact that the net is not reliable. As they are both sites on the net, I come to the conclusion that they are equal.
Also, Google in itself is not reliable due to the fact that sites that it spiders are not always reliable. Surely they both must be equal if both are not biased?
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.


I compare them through the fact that they are both on the net, and it is a fact that the net is not reliable. As they are both sites on the net, I come to the conclusion that they are equal.
Also, Google in itself is not reliable due to the fact that sites that it spiders are not always reliable. Surely they both must be equal if both are not biased?


I see where you're coming from, but since google includes wiki, it obviously has more information. All it takes is one good link from google that isn't on wiki. Wink (I know, I know, and a hundred bad ones, lol)
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.


I compare them through the fact that they are both on the net, and it is a fact that the net is not reliable. As they are both sites on the net, I come to the conclusion that they are equal.
Also, Google in itself is not reliable due to the fact that sites that it spiders are not always reliable. Surely they both must be equal if both are not biased?


I see where you're coming from, but since google includes wiki, it obviously has more information. All it takes is one good link from google that isn't on wiki. Wink (I know, I know, and a hundred bad ones, lol)


Yeah, me too. There are obviously positive and negitive aspects to both Google and Wiki, but seen as it's on the net I try not trust what I'm reading (although in the end I usually do, unless it goes beyond my mental capacity of thinking).
ocalhoun
Well, whereas on wiki, you only get one opinion (or fact) about what you're looking for, google provides links to many viewpoints on the given subject; therefore google is more reliable, because it gives an unbiased (unless you live in china Wink ) sampling of all the available viewpoints, while wiki presents only one (which is, of course, usually included in the search results for google: in fact, I don't recall doing any google search recently that didn't bring up anything from wiki on the first page of results.)

You do, however, have to be more careful with google, and be sure to view all the different points of view, while wiki will often give you a little 'the objectivity of this article is disputed' message, but when it does so, it does not provide links to the viewpoints that would dispute it, while on google, you see the dispute right there, without google itself endorsing any of them. (aside from by ordering the search results, which could be said to be a product of the popularity of that point of view.)
Jack_Hammer
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.


Yeah, dude, he is right, there is no way you can compare them. Unless what your saying is what Google say and what Wiki say, in that case I would say what Google say, as they say very little. The information shown from the search engine etc. is not reliable but that is nothing to do with Google.
wumingsden
Jack_Hammer wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
Which site do yo uthink is more reliable? I personally think they are equal due to the fact that they are both on the net, and the net on a whole, in my opinion, is not reliable enough to trust what you read.


You can't compare the two. One is a search engine, the other is an information site, which is included in the google search engine. If you insist on mistakenly comparing the two, by the simple fact that GOOGLE INCLUDES WIKI in it's search results, GOOGLE IS MORE RELIABLE.


Yeah, dude, he is right, there is no way you can compare them. Unless what your saying is what Google say and what Wiki say, in that case I would say what Google say, as they say very little. The information shown from the search engine etc. is not reliable but that is nothing to do with Google.


OK, I don't really understand your reply but I'll do my best.

First, there is no correct answer, only one's opinion. Google lists sites which may or may not contain facts, either way, both arguments are considered due to them coming from different places. Wiki is mainly wrote by one person, where other users can add information. I think that there is also a discussion on what should be included in the article before it is published.

The thing that I don't really like about the net, is that I don't think there's one place that is completely not biased. The articles/websites are wrote by humans, and in my opinion all people are somewhat biased (however small) on one subject or another, and therefore I rate them equally (and also use both at times too).
nilsmo
ocalhoun wrote:
Wgoogle provides links to many viewpoints on the given subject; therefore google is more reliable, because it gives an unbiased (unless you live in china Wink ) sampling of all the available viewpoints, while wiki presents only one

The links google provides are biased by page rank. Wikipedia is biased by the many editors and contributors. Really this is a complex issue that can't be simplified with a post. Let's do some field-testing.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
First, there is no correct answer,


Only if you don't understand the difference between the two. Shocked Laughing

Google and Wiki are two different tools. It's like comparing a toolbox to a screw driver and saying the screw driver more reliable (useful?) than the tool box full of tools, including the same screwdriver.

http://wikipedia.com can be compared to things like http://encyclopedia.com.

http://google.com can be compared to things like http://search.yahoo.com.
ocalhoun
wumingsden wrote:


The thing that I don't really like about the net, is that I don't think there's one place that is completely not biased.

The same is true of all second-hand information, the net included. The only things you can be absolutely sure of are things you have personally observed. As for myself, the only thing I am absolutely sure of is that I exist. Everything else is just working with the available information that is most likely to be true.
Jack_Hammer
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
First, there is no correct answer,


Only if you don't understand the difference between the two. Shocked Laughing

Google and Wiki are two different tools. It's like comparing a toolbox to a screw driver and saying the screw driver more reliable (useful?) than the tool box full of tools, including the same screwdriver.


What I was trying to say, hard to explain without an example.
Wink
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
First, there is no correct answer,


Only if you don't understand the difference between the two. Shocked Laughing

Google and Wiki are two different tools. It's like comparing a toolbox to a screw driver and saying the screw driver more reliable (useful?) than the tool box full of tools, including the same screwdriver.

http://wikipedia.com can be compared to things like http://encyclopedia.com.

http://google.com can be compared to things like http://search.yahoo.com.


I understand that, of course.

However, I still don't think there is a correct answer due to the fact that you have to think about the reliability, which is usually only an opinion (unless you actually do an experiement on it to prove which is the most reliable).
Jack_Hammer
wumingsden wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
First, there is no correct answer,


Only if you don't understand the difference between the two. Shocked Laughing

Google and Wiki are two different tools. It's like comparing a toolbox to a screw driver and saying the screw driver more reliable (useful?) than the tool box full of tools, including the same screwdriver.

http://wikipedia.com can be compared to things like http://encyclopedia.com.

http://google.com can be compared to things like http://search.yahoo.com.


I understand that, of course.

However, I still don't think there is a correct answer due to the fact that you have to think about the reliability, which is usually only an opinion (unless you actually do an experiement on it to prove which is the most reliable).


S3nd K3ys is saying that you cannot compare them, it's not an option of someones opinion it's a simple statement that you cannot compare them.
ocalhoun
But google doesn't provide information; it only gives links to the people who do provide it.
Given that google includes wiki, it must be at least as reliable, and needs only one instance wherein google gives a correct fact and wiki does not in order to be more reliable.

It's like asking which is more reliable: a Ford or a F150?
wumingsden
ocalhoun wrote:
But google doesn't provide information; it only gives links to the people who do provide it.
Given that google includes wiki, it must be at least as reliable, and needs only one instance wherein google gives a correct fact and wiki does not in order to be more reliable.

It's like asking which is more reliable: a Ford or a F150?


wumingsden wrote:
I personally think they are equal
deStructuralized
Google and Wikipedia don't do the same things. Comparing them is silly.

Also, the question would be better phrased if you specified. "Reliable in terms of ______"...because Google is a lot better as a search engine whereas Wikipedia is full of resources in encyclopedia style.

Something to note about Wikipedia is that academics don't tend to look upon it very highly, as it's "open source" information.
Inferno619
Wikipedia is better for more specific topics and if you want alot of elaborate information. But, if you just wanted a fast answer on a not-so specific topic, then Google is for you. Both are good in there own ways.
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
I understand that, of course..


Aren't you glad I explained it then?

Quote:
However, I still don't think there is a correct answer due to the fact that you have to think about the reliability, which is usually only an opinion (unless you actually do an experiement on it to prove which is the most reliable).


I thought you said you understood it? (Of course)

wumingsden wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

...
It's like asking which is more reliable: a Ford or a F150?


wumingsden wrote:
I personally think they are equal


An F150 IS a Ford. Of course. Wink

:edit: I'll ask you via PM instead of publicly :/edit:
matt9875
google by far as google has a larger backing and many more tools eg;

Earth
Adsence
froogle
news
groups
shopping
alerts
email

and many many more helpful services
mschnell
I've read through this and am utterly confused over what you're even trying to compare. Reliable for what? Reliable for the kind of information that can be found? Are you talking about wikipedia when you say wiki or do you actually mean any wiki?
wumingsden
mschnell wrote:
I've read through this and am utterly confused over what you're even trying to compare. Reliable for what? Reliable for the kind of information that can be found? Are you talking about wikipedia when you say wiki or do you actually mean any wiki?


wikipedia, I believe (I started this discussion because a number of users decided to go off-topic and discuss it in another thread, therefore I quickly opened this).

And yes, which is more reliable (if any).
mstreet
I use wiki more for something I know would actually be in an encyclopedia britannica than doing a random search on google. I usually use google when I don't think I can find it myself. I hope that makes sense
peaceninja
i think he's trying to abstract the idea between the two sites. he's simply asking which one do you think is more reliable to find information. geez people.

my opinion, wiki is collaborative and it's 'truthiness' is dependent upon what the majority of people agree to what the truth is. google indexes information all over the web.

both of them are full of unreliable information, but at least google makes it easier to cross-reference to check. wiki's only way of "cross referencing" is by looking at the history of a page and the discussion associated with it ("history" and "discussion" are both tabs at the top of every page).
S3nd K3ys
peaceninja wrote:
i think he's trying to abstract the idea between the two sites. he's simply asking which one do you think is more reliable to find information. geez people.


Actually, Mr. Conspirator tries to argue that Google.com is unreliable as a research tool. He claims wiki is all things to all men. Problem is that wiki is included in google.com's searches. :sigh:

The simple (and quite sad from the looks of this thread and some of the replies) is that they are two different things and cannot be compared in the context that wumingsden is trying to compare them.

geez. Rolling Eyes
alezunde
Inferno619 wrote:
Wikipedia is better for more specific topics and if you want alot of elaborate information. But, if you just wanted a fast answer on a not-so specific topic, then Google is for you. Both are good in there own ways.

I wouldn't use one without the other. Generally wikipedia is amazingly accurate, but I won't believe anything radical in those articles unless I use Google to cross-reference with other sources.
Neither is more accurate than the other, and certainly not Google. Google itself is a networking tool between sites, but has little to nothing to do with the content that it links through its searches. Many of sources are just webpages based on someones opinion anyhow, so its accuracy is not guaranteed.
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:
peaceninja wrote:
i think he's trying to abstract the idea between the two sites. he's simply asking which one do you think is more reliable to find information. geez people.


Actually, Mr. Conspirator tries to argue that Google.com is unreliable as a research tool. He claims wiki is all things to all men. Problem is that wiki is included in google.com's searches. :sigh:

The simple (and quite sad from the looks of this thread and some of the replies) is that they are two different things and cannot be compared in the context that wumingsden is trying to compare them.

geez. Rolling Eyes


I'm not really bothered about comparing them, but like I stated if I did it would be different than yours. I always use google to search for things. If however I want to find something very quickly and I don't think the define function in google will be appropiate then I'll probably use wikipedia.

I'd also like to note that this thread was created by me just to keep another thread on topic. I don't really give a damn about which is more reliable, because I don't think there is a correct answer.

So, debate all you want Cool
Ray Gravin
I agree that all information on the net should be taken with some degree of questioning as far as absolutes are concerned. On that same token all information should no matter what the source should be taken the same. Just because a book says one thing doesn't make it truth. Just because someone's mouth says something doesn't mean they know what the heck there talking about. You should always try to have an understanding of the human error aspect of all information sharing.
bloodeath
Google FTW!!!!
peaceninja
wumingsden wrote:

Quote:
Wiki .v. Google...Which site do you think is more reliable?


Quote:
I'm not really bothered about comparing them...I don't really give a damn about which is more reliable


excuse me for staying on topic! Laughing
peaceninja
ocalhoun wrote:
But google doesn't provide information; it only gives links to the people who do provide it.
Given that google includes wiki, it must be at least as reliable, and needs only one instance wherein google gives a correct fact and wiki does not in order to be more reliable.

It's like asking which is more reliable: a Ford or a F150?


So we're not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing applesauce to apples? Cool

I agree to some extent, however google does not keep track of the most recent changes done to the encyclopedia. So saying that wikipedia is a subset of google isn't entirely accurate, also when google crawls over a page that may have been vandalized, it remains in google's cache and search index until google crawls over it again, whenever that is. Whereas in wikipedia, it's usually changed right away.
mschnell
peaceninja wrote:

So we're not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing applesauce to apples?


For argument's sake, I would say apples to applesauce.
ocalhoun
^More like comparing an orchard to an apple.
Dark_Tiger
More like comparing a card catalog to a book.

Unless you are comparing Wikipedia to say Google Scholarly or Books or something like that. In that case, since it's a choice between actual experts and Joe the high school dropout, I don't think there's much of a comparision.

Not that Google Scholarly is very good mind you, it sucks when compared to the other scholarly databases avialable, but it is free, and that means I don't have to jump through 3 proxies and 2 password checks to get to it.
amusic
actually both sites are good. If you can't find anything or insufficient information given in either site, try searching at another site. Usually wiki is for me to search and learn thing when i fee bored.
godam64
google is better than wiki.
google have a lot of money to creat many site like wiki.
rhathar
wumingsden wrote:

First, there is no correct answer, only one's opinion. Google lists sites which may or may not contain facts, either way, both arguments are considered due to them coming from different places.



Exactly. I will say, personally, I think Wikipedia is easier if you just need to look up a few fact about one thing. FACTS. It's great for, say, a list of dates involving a war, or information about what shows such and such actor was in. Even then, you may get burned.

Now, Google is no better, and is in some ways worse as to the quality of the information, but the potential for excellence is, I believe, much higher.

I can find anything I want on Google, and given enough time to properly research it, and I can usually verify the authenticity of each source. Wikipedia, alas, is really only good for a quick search to satisfy trivia. Usually.
Liu
Like others have said before me, you can't compare the two.

Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, google is a search engine.

It's like saying which is better?
The library or an Encyclopedia?

You can't compare the two... so what, they both exist on the same medium, it doesn't mean they are equal.
cybernie
I think Google is much better than Wiki. Google is like a library with lots of references in it. Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia which I consider has limited resources unlike Google. I think a library is much better than a single encyclopedia. But, both are of great help to me.
saratdear
You can't really compare the two in a way.
I Google a lot, and it is of course better when you are searching for a specific thing (I know a site name, but not the URL), but if I want to do a project or something, on a broad topic, it is better to search Wikipedia, than Google and take information from every site you land on. For example, about two months back, I had to do a project on Globalisation, and I googled it, and the Wikipedia article was on the results. I did the project on that, and I got about 27-30 slides. Easy, rather than googleing and then editing stuff from various sites, etc. Wink
Boffel
Yes I agree, you cant compare them. Im using google to find all kind of sites, and wiki for facts to school projects.

Like, you cant search for "games" in wikipedia. If you do that, you will only get the whole game history, and if you search for "games" in google, you will find alot of game sites.

Both is very usefull on different ways. Because if you trying to find facts in google, you got to search throug alot of sites while wiki comes with alot of facts of exactly what you was searching for in the first link.

And its the same with wiki, as I said you cant search for gaming sites there.
cybernie
that's what i am trying to emphasize. you can use google when searching for wide and large range of information and references. wiki can be used in searching for a more specific range of informations.
Nameless
Google is more reliable. It INCLUDES wikipedia in it's results, and can be tweaked to search for more reliable and official sources across the whole web. If you just used wikipedia exclusively and there was an error, you wouldn't pick it up. You can't really compare them as reliable sources of information though. Wikipedia provides usually reliable information, while Google *does not provide information* it merely searches for other sources of information (but it, uh, searches reliably).
ehab
Exactly .. Wikipedia is small, comparing Google's range. There is no point in discussing this.

considering reliability - google would be your choice, since most webmasters are building a sitemap and submitting their sites to google, while not much people ( comparing ) are submitting to wikip.
seagullspirit
its absurd to compare the 2 sites: google is a top search engine while wiki seems to be turning into the most elegant approach to a web encyclopedia.
DynamicNames
Both are very good places to search for various topics. However, as a user in this thread stated, Google has some or most of Wikipedia's pages on the different subjects, considering that Google indexed Wiki because it is a fairly big site. And because of that, I would have to say that Google is actually pretty much better than Wikipedia, even though I use both of them at almost as much frequency on topics.
coblah
i dont think you can compare google to wiki, unless your just searching for information
google can be used for many other things like searching for games/purchases/etc.
whereas wiki is ONLY good for information
sorry if i pretty much posted what every one else wrote i just wanted 2 put my 2 cents in the box
co2socs
Wiki.... By my opinion, it's a really useless site, because peoples can edit themselves this site...

The idea is really good, but the problem with that is that the contents are not all valid...

To prove you that fact, just have a look on a subject that you know well and type it on wiki and you will see how much mistakes they made... Maybe not on all subjects, but on most of them there are few errors, so for research, for example, NEVER use wikki, because you may end up with some false informations...

Google is a pretty good search engin... Only problem is that sometimes the first site is not the best, but the one that paid the most Google to figure the first... But without taking this in consideration, Google is nice.
jcvincent
hi! if wiki stands for wikipedia, then i guess we can't compare it with google. wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, while google is a search engine. i guess the best way for us to compare is which is better? yahoo or google? and which is better? wikipedia or britanica? hehe.. peace!

Have a merry Christmas to you all!
pashmina
without google the internet is incomplete. wiki is just a complementary good. wiki is nothing compared to google.
docdude75
wats to compara ones a search engine the others a book with info basicly
DeathlyHallows
Well, for finding a specific fact about something, Google is better. For getting a general overview about something, Wikipedia is the jackpot. Except for the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia; easily change a date, a name, etc. So google's better to me.
CyanEyed
personally i think that google is better for finding stuff and wiki is better for find what stuff means. thats why most things that u search for on google have a wikipedia link on the first page
Jert14
both are very good Smile
spazbutt32
Reliable? As in, able to be relied on?

Speaking strictly from accuracy, Wikipedia beats Google by millions.

Google returns a bunch of refuse with a few good bits of information thrown in, while the English Wikipedia is 96% as accurate as the Encyclopædia Britcannica on every subject it covers.
Billwaa
They are both not good source for writing paper. You need source such as POWER LIBARY, GALE GROUPS, and other resorces like that.
TDesign
Google is better than wikipedia

In Google when you write "free web hosting" you will get the sites witch provide free web hosting

but

In Wikipedia you will get answer What is Free web hosting

so... GooGLE is ߀T€R than WiKip€dI@
OutlawSpirit
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
First, there is no correct answer,


Only if you don't understand the difference between the two. Shocked Laughing

Google and Wiki are two different tools. It's like comparing a toolbox to a screw driver and saying the screw driver more reliable (useful?) than the tool box full of tools, including the same screwdriver.

http://wikipedia.com can be compared to things like http://encyclopedia.com.

http://google.com can be compared to things like http://search.yahoo.com.


exactly what i thought when reading the title...
shadowcastpm
That is true, Wiki and Google are completly different, for example google is used for indexing websites, where as Wiki is used for resource of information, although google can lookup up terms using the "define:example" term this does not compete with Wiki.

On the plus side google offers indexing of millions of webpages (billions - if you count the spam and rubbish out there).

Both sources in my opinion are both very usefull, offering services that the web today couldn't do without, I mean could you see a web without google?

I believe that google is by far the more important if terms come down to it =)

- Peter.
fingo
Somewhat offtopic, but:

To all the people who are saying that wikipedia has so many mistakes and look at how all of these high school dropouts can put up whatever they want:

http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such is going to be less reliable and in-depth then scholarly research papers and books, but as an encyclopedia is does pretty well. Especially considering that it can have up to the minute information about current events, and stuff that real encyclopedia's won't touch, like episode guides for Battlestar Galactica.
skygaia
It's very difficult to compre with them. Because Google is a kind of search engine and wiki is a kind of encyclopedias.
These days many people say there are many errors in Wikipedia. well.. it might be right.. but they think it is a encyclopedia.
I think we can't say google is reliable or not. we could say google is very fast or correct...
Commando_Sondre
Google is great for more specific kind of information, Wikipedia is better on bigger topics. At least, thats my opinion.
yy1124
Is hard to compare these two since they are not of the same "type"...

when I only need some answers and not that much of details, I will just search for the item in Wiki site; but when it comes to serious researching, Wiki itself is not sufficient, I will use Google instead and search for more articles/information about the item/topic and compare each other. Wiki is not always right.
Derioh
I prefer to use Wiki because Google is a search engine and Wiki some sort of Encyclopedia, but if I can't find something on Wiki, I use Google Razz
Silent
Well it really depends waht im looking for.. If im browsing many certain types of a topic i will most likely use Google cause i think there is more of a wide search on google.
If i wanna look up on 1 specified topic then i will use wiki cause they have good info on each certian topic and people. So theres no reason to say which is better when they are both very helpful!!
JJGY
A lot of people knock wikipedia for being unreliable, but it really contains much better information than ninety nine percent of the sites out there. A LOT of people use wikipedia by this point, and the fact that everyone who views an article is able to make changes and correct it ads a lot to the chances of it staying up to date and accurate.
ankur.vatsa
Wiki is created by online users of wiki. So you could create a wiki page by searching for some topic on google but you cannot create Google from Wiki. Apart from jokes, since wiki is user contributed it may even contain thoughts only and no actual facts whereas google presents thoughts and facts (with statistics)

But then Google even has wikimapia and hence I believe that they too trust their users. Hence, if wiki is used properly and works on thoughts and facts both it is as good as Google.

A positive on wiki - you may or may not register to use it and hence prevent data-mining about you what google does for sure and that is good sure.
rnankori
it's dumb.

Google is a search engine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can search anything in google, but it will bring up sites not description. Wiki won't bring up many good sites, but it will teach you something.

It sounds stupid. but so does the question.
pawelsz
Strange question, I agree with those who posted before me, but I personally more like Wikipedia while I use Google more often Wink

Why? When I'm reading wiki, there are links to articles. Let's say, I'm reading about some audio album and I open few links (about instruments, author, etc) in new windows. And then I read the next opened article while opening new links in background, and so on Cool This way, time passes by very fast.

But Google - if not only thinking about it as a search engine has really lots of stuff - gmail, google earth etc. Those are really nice things and I can spend really much time while looking at the satellite photos of some places I know or I want to visit Very Happy

I don't choose Google or Wikipedia. They shouldn't be compared. I would understand if we had two encyclopedias or two search engines, but... Guess what Wink
izhar_saifi
I don't know what wiki is?.....so in my view GOOGLE search engine is best... Embarassed
letssee
Of course, most people would think, Google has been existing more than wiki so it would be more reliable. Google is a search engine, as previously mentioned, and this topic contridicts itself because wiki is included in the search engine. People have based reliability on how long something has been for and how it has worked for them. Google has worked for many many people, whereas Wiki has been for sometime later. Therefore I would conclude that Google should be more reliable than Wiki.
jon9314
Well, whereas on wiki, you only get one opinion (or fact) about what you're looking for, google provides links to many viewpoints on the given subject; therefore google is more reliable, because it gives an unbiased (unless you live in china ) sampling of all the available viewpoints, while wiki presents only one (which is, of course, usually included in the search results for google: in fact, I don't recall doing any google search recently that didn't bring up anything from wiki on the first page of results.)

You do, however, have to be more careful with google, and be sure to view all the different points of view, while wiki will often give you a little 'the objectivity of this article is disputed' message, but when it does so, it does not provide links to the viewpoints that would dispute it, while on google, you see the dispute right there, without google itself endorsing any of them. (aside from by ordering the search results, which could be said to be a product of the popularity of that point of view.)
Seiji
Google is great for searching but wiki is great for info. Even when I use good to find information on something a wiki link usually comes up. Some people say Wikipedia doesn't have reliable information but I like it anyway. Google on the other hand always gives me good choices when I searching for stuff. I wish they would improve there image selection though. They are probably my top 5 favorite information/search engine sites. I use them almost every single day.
murray732
Read through the first page and seen that some were saying they're incomparable. Personally, I think they are comparable in the sense that they both provide information. Neither of them can compare 100% accurate information. Somebody also said that since google contains wiki, then google just needs 1 accurate piece of info that is not wiki related to be better then wiki. This is what leads me to believe that google is > then wiki.
Vrythramax
Personally I think google is overkill (I have over 3000 entries there), where as wiki gives you indepth (but not always accurate) information.

And it seems I have been quoted...by s3ndk3ys......thanks man. I have almost 2500 posts and you quote me.... Dancing

I'm, told I am a Global Moderator.....maybe with your help I'll make Jr. Admin Very Happy
SmartIcon
Google is for search of any item on the world wide web. wiki for any complete information about any thing. How can we compare them. when I need some information about anything then I simply use both.
sjjGFM
Google is better as it can search everything
Vrythramax
Google is very good......even I must grant that......but 1.6 million responses to a simple search is over kill.
Related topics
Google Earth ¡V Explore, Search and Discover
Can you give me your thoughts on Burlesque?
Anyone got a site???
RIAA v. Computer Illiterate Mother of Five
Attn: Numa Numa Fans!!! Numa Numa Banners!
Google Adsense vraagjes
Atheism is not scientific.
Google Tips
Your opinion on Wikipedia... Is it full of junk?
Do you believe in Meditation?
"Its not natural." And that makes it bad?
Convert any video, DVD, Youtube clips to iPod, PSP, Zune
Cheapest Domain Registration..!!
wiki which allows to publish google adsense
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.