“If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia,” he said.”Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?”

I can’t think of an occasion where Google has returned a Wikipedia entry for a query and that Wikipedia entry hasn’t been totally relevant and detailed.

Besides, the contest for detail, freshness, accessibility and usability Wikipedia wins hands down; compare the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia articles on Alcohol. EB weighs in at roughly 500 words, WP at roughly 3500. Another interesting comparison: the EB article about Wikipedia weighs in at roughly 900 words, the WP article about Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7600 words.

How many people aware of the “state of the art” can readily contribute to EB? Not many. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia doesn’t have it’s faults, of course. On the other hand EB isn’t always correct either.

Oh yeah – and to get proper access to Encyclopaedia Britannica, you have to pay fifty quid a year. No thanks.