Wikipedia SearchMonkey App Now Default On
- Posted January 15th, 2009 at 9:00 am by Yahoo! Search
- Categories: Industry, SearchMonkey
Starting today, the Wikipedia Enhanced Result will automatically appear in the search results. Not surprisingly, we’ve seen a handful of Wikipedia Enhanced Results and Infobars built in the past few months. After observing how people used these apps, we gathered the best elements from each and built a new app. If you prefer any of the other Wikipedia apps, you can of course opt to use them instead (by adjusting your preferences here).
This new Wikipedia app includes a photo (if there’s one in the corresponding article), deep links to the first four sections of the article, and a snippet pulled from the article summary. For example, say you’re a mid-century furniture fan and you’re looking to learn more about Eames chairs. A search for Eames chairs will bring up two Wikipedia results for two of their famous chairs. You can use the photo to help you decide which result is best for your needs (this is called result disambiguation by us search geeks) and then click a deep link to jump directly to your answer.
While Wikipedia may be the most well-known reference site on the web, it’s certainly not the only one. In fact, there are SearchMonkey apps for many other top sites, including HowStuffWorks, eHow, CIA World Factbook, Merriam-Webster, and a lot more.
We hope these apps make searching for reference information on the web easier and faster. Let us know if you have any feedback.
SearchMonkey Team
p.s. Today appears to be the 8th anniversary of the launch of Wikipedia. Congrats to Wikipedia and its many contributors!
- 21 Comments
- Subscribe
So instead of helping surface decent, authoritative content you opted for the “we don’t have the resources to do it right” solution and push Ickipedia on people.
You ARE aware that increasing numbers of educators tell their students to NOT rely upon Wikipedia because it’s so unreliable, right?
You’re basically putting an ever-changing source of disputable “facts” in front of your search audience.
That’s NOT the way to get back to the number 2 position in the search market, much less to overtake Google and challenge them for number 1.
The trick, if there is such a thing, is variety. Make certain you collect a steady and varied collection of links
Being a science student i dont think whatever information published on wiki is much reliable.I wont deny its good collection to start with
Thanks !
You’re basically putting an ever-changing source of disputable “facts” in front of your search audience.
That’s NOT the way to get back to the number 2 position in the search market, much less to overtake Google and challenge them for number 1.
I have to agree Luv Muley since alot of the facts on Wikipedia are disputed. I think for the average Joe, Wikipedia is a go to place for surface information. Those who really want to get more in depth info know that you have to dig deeper through the results.
While wiki isn’t always 100% reliable, its often a very good start point for information and most of the references on wiki also contain links to other sources…..
Whats wrong with giving people easy access to that?
Relying on ANY one source is bad…. Are you saying that basically because no source on the internet can be considered totally reliable that search engines should just give a blank page for every query? That would make them popular!
Make certain you collect a steady and varied collection of links
That’s NOT the way to get back to the number 2 position in the search market, much less to overtake Google and challenge them for number 1.
Cool. What if I search for Britney, in example, will Wikipedia show who is Britney Spears or another Britney along with her photo? I must try it.
Wikipedia has been great. Its been useful to search unknown topics and find out what they really mean. thank you Wikipedia.
I have to agree lot of the facts on Wikipedia are disputed.
Wikipedia is great!
I have to agree lot of the facts on Wikipedia are disputed.
You’re basically putting an ever-changing source of disputable “facts” in front of your search audience.manken
Wiki won’t never 100% reliable
I have to agree Luv Muley since alot of the facts on Wikipedia are disputed
Whats wrong with giving people easy access to that?
I have to agree lot of the facts on Wikipedia are disputed.
Your article is valueble for me. Thanks!
I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I am not certain whether this submit is composed by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty. You’re amazing! Thanks!