Wiki First

When searching from something via google, yahoo, or w/e, I think Wiki should be the mandatory first result.

I don't know how many times I;ve just typed "<my search thing> wiki" to make sure it does..

Though the search engine is based on hits/popularity/whatever what about it being based on facts? I think most people want that and can care less about the most popular- obviously that would probably be the second result anyway.

The fact that the wiki result is usually the top one anyway- but sometimes when I'm looking for something a bit odd- I get whoknowswhat. I'd actually like to view the disambugation from Wiki more than I'd like to see the random pages from the search engine that pop up...

Yes, using UrbanDictionary is fine for random things- I sort of have to guess- is that real or should I check UD to see?

What I'm thinking is more of a Wiki/fact based search instead of the popularity ones we have now. It would be harder to monitor what is fact and relay the result instead of just parse the number of hits and throw up pages- but I think it might be good!

o.O

I feel a 'cool story bro' coming on -.-

Although I agree (I think) with the OP i have absolutely no idea what you hope to achieve by telling us and/or what we should/shouldn't be doing to achieve what you think.

It's as random as me telling people "I think tigers should be neon yellow"

tigers aren't neon yellow?

They'd look better neon green.

I was thinking Neon Yellow so they could camouflage themselves in raves or in custard

Google attempts to learn, ever noticed the little stars by the search results?

Click on them to show that you are more interested in that type of site.

Yeah but they'd look cooler neon green under a black light <.<

Well I learned something new today!

lol

How do you get a "Black Light"?

from a black man

Today Google, Tomorrow:

You're not serious are you? Lol, you can buy them at Wal-mart among a billion other stores.

Interesting discussion, though not related to FFXI. I therefore suggest that this topic is moved to chatterbox.

In response to the OP: the fundamental issue is the perception of the construct fact.


What is a fact?

If I express that the moon is made of cheese because it is round and has holes in it, I make a factual statement. Whether this statement holds truth is irrelevant to the fact that the statement itself is constructed as a factual statement. If I express that the moon should be made of silicum-carbonate and other combinations of elements because all other bodies in space have this composition, my expression holds a prescribing value.

A statement is not perceived as factual because it holds a form of objective truth, but because of the way the statement is formulated. Objective truth is a construct in itself which can be discussed to great lengths.

What is truth?

Consider the way humanity viewed the shape of the earth and it’s relation to the sun before Galileo. The consensus was that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Until the new concept was coined that the earth could be spherical and revolve around the sun in little over 365 days. This new concept was perceived as “untruthful” because the earth was “in fact” flat. This is an example of how the truthfulness of a statement is dependent on the consensus about knowledge surrounding a certain topic.

How do we define truth?

In current day science, truth is often found through a process of deductivism (Karl Popper, 1935) in which a central pillar states that scientific knowledge should be systematically tested in order for it to be considered a “truth”. This testing should be performed by deducting empirically testable hypotheses from theoretical constructs. An example of this practice is stating that all mature swans are white; to test this truth, an hypothesis has to be formed which tests the existence of swans which are a different colour than white (black/red/purple?). If this alternative hypothesis is tested positively, the assumption that all swans are white holds less truth, because obviously there are also black swans.



The lesson learned is that as long as a statement has not been falsified (= the opposite is proven), this statement holds truth. Objective factual information is however impossible to confirm in social sciences, which has led to the Forum Theory of A.D. de Groot (1982). De Groot here states that scientific consensus should be reached among a forum of experts in the particular field, in order for a claim to be considered “fact”. An example here is the consensus about the way different atoms build up a molecule: a microscope which can distinguish among protons and electrons and as such can visibly split up matter into its building blocks is yet to be built. However, all signs point toward the assumption that atoms are build up from protons, neutrons and electrons, and molecules are constructions of several atoms. An opposing hypothesis to this assumption has not been positively tested yet and scientific consensus has been reached, which means we hold “factual truth” under the current knowledge paradigm. Perhaps a researcher will find an alternative explanation to how matter is build up with the current tests being conducted at CERN.

What does this have to do with Google and Wikipedia?

Suggesting that Wikipedia holds factual information is a claim which has some implications. Wikipedia is an environment in which people can contribute to articles and as such can be seen as the creation and product of a general consensus among contributors. Wikipedia’s articles however hold less truth than alternative sources in which testable conclusions are formulated. For this reason it is generally frowned upon to quote from Wikipedia or use it as a source to base an argument on.

Google uses a fundamental aspect of scientific consensus-forming in giving pages which have been cited or linked to in other articles a higher priority, than pages which have been cited or linked to less. The number of citations and links is an operationalisation of the level of truth or consensus about the topic you’re searching for. If many websites link to a Wikipedia article, this article will end up higher among Google’s search results.

Conclusion

Factual information is an expression of what the author perceives as objective truth. “Truth” is a social construct of what we agree upon in a certain knowledge paradigm. A shift in paradigm through an expansion of knowledge will lead to a different perception of “truth”.

Using Wikipedia is a good way to get a quick introduction on a particular topic. The information should however not be taken for granted. It is important to realize that concepts in certain articles are not tested for truth. Consider also the possibility of contributors sabotaging articles in order to hide aspects of the truth.


-I was bored yes...
tl;dr? sucks to be you :p

YOU GOT TO GET TO THE CHOPPER!!! GOOO!!!