This is nice, but what would be really cool is if you extracted answers directly from Wikipedia.

So, yes, I know that, if I do a search for something like "Who was George Washington?" you will return instant answers extracted from various sources, including Wikipedia.

But, if I do a search for "coffee bean types", why not return an instant answer from Wikipedia right there? You don't right now. Right now, you make me click through to Wikipedia to see my answer. That's one click too many.

Or just try AskMSR
see the research paper

For some reasons the feature does not show up when I click on the same links. But it is a good feature indeed.

Just off the top of my head "bio" comes to mind. Less clicks to a definitive biography for "Meatloaf" would be a plus. For music bios VH1 is my personal favorite. Maybe the folks at Wikimedia should look into partnering with VH1 for bio content.

So who really wins? It's odd that Google links to Wikipidia before Yahoo. However, I like Yahoo!'s number 1 result better than Google’s Wikipedia link.

Check out John Glenn Bio on both Engines (No Personalization)

Yahoo Results 1 "John Glenn Bio" = NASA Biography: John Herschel Glenn, Jr.

Google Results: John Glenn ... is a former American astronaut, Air Force fighter pilot, and politician.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Glenn

I love the Yahoo result as it is. What's better than a John Glenn Bio from NASA.

Wikipedia is just too jumbled for me and I rarely click Wikipedia results for bios.

I like a bio written by experts like NASA

Yahoo Wins! But it's funny that it's the Wikipedia result is No. 1 on Google and not Yahoo!

Be careful Yahoo! I think you got the right result for “John Glenn Bio” - Don't mess it up by placing the Wikipedia result first.

Xad: According to wikipedia stats that I read not more than a year ago, more people come to Wikipedia from Yahoo than from Google. Even though Yahoo is used less than google. In fact Google used to show a lot of spam links from Wikipedia clones (filled with Google ads no doubt). Some Wikipedians claimed that Google was doing this deliberately since they did not like Wikipedia's growth as an alternative to search engines. Since then Google has got its act together though. But Wikipedia links still are higher on Yahoo searches than they are on Google's, Yahoo has partnered with Wikipedia for quite some time and considers Wikipedia as its content provider.

Anyway, the new feature is neat, but I don't know what you are using over here the Wikipedia result is number 9, not 5. I don't see any Quick links. What gives?

As if it weren't bad enough that Wikipedia fouls its own nest, now its pseudo-information will be linked to just about any search one does. Yahoo should be ashamed of itself. If people want Wikipedia-style disinformation, they can simply go to Wikipedia and get it. Why pollute every single search with insufferable, inarticulate, innaccurate, slanderous wikibabble? Another great advance of Web 2.0, I suppose...

Well, chalk another one up to the oozing brain-dead, infantilized WC walls of the Wikipedian techno-cult of ignorance...

Pretty pathetic, Yahoo.

"Why pollute every single search with insufferable, inarticulate, innaccurate, slanderous wikibabble"

Good question. And, you just described the entire internet (from a basic point of view), so in that case, Yahoo! should close its doors entirely?

Xad:

Sure. We definitely want and plan to increase useful coverage of the quick links and biographies looks like a great one - let me see what I can do. Let us know what else you think you might like and find useful - while we have some ideas on what deep content we will surface next, hearing from the search public is an invaluable source. Tell us, and we'll try our best to make it happen.

If the search engines show always Wikipedia as the top results for so many keywords, why shouldn't people just go directly to Wikipedia and cut out the middlemen?

Yeah, it seems this is the trend. Soon the internet will become "the world" and everything will follow wikipedia exemple. Having communities, new communication tools and gizomos like this is way better those days than owning a gold mine, i suppose. Not far for today i found www.sayitbold.com . This site is a very simple example. Give ppl a nice tool to play and become rich. The only problem is we should find "the tool"

The above 3 posts by Ikey Benney are obviously comment spam. You should implement "nofollow" tags on links here.

Anyway, is this Wikipedia integration a US only thing, because I don't seem to get it when searching for "coffee" or anything else.

There's already a wikipedia search engine called Qwika. http://www.qwika.com The interface is not so amusing, but the results are preety good.

hi, more than a comment its more a question. I'm interested of building up more unique content on the web, but of course, I'd like to make it in the way that yahoo engines could crawl the site rightly. for example, can could my site be listed as a reference under a search response, like yahoo does and like you show above with Wikipedia.

I've seen an amazing improvement in Yahoo! search recently -- they have not only solved change of site address issues (used to be slower than others), but have not followed google current problems of finding non-alias site addresses, instead of linked one.

That said, there is a real danger to both Yahoo! and wikipedia in showing the subsections -- spamming of wikipedia might become a huge problem when the spammer knows exactly where to place their links for each search. Not sure how that can be solved, but am sure it will happen.

Can wiki spend the time necessary to clean-up each of their sites everyday? My interest is more than passing -- I volunteer manage the WWW-VL: W3 Search Engines directory.

I think it's an incredible thing... keep it up! To be able to access so many topics & sub-topics ad infinitum is very useful.

I personally like some of Wikipedia, but why Wikipedia over DMOZ, or Yahoo's own Directory?
Also why is Yahoo shedding so many good quality links from High ranking sites?

Wikipedia is nice, but should not be trusted. All we need to do is create an accesible electronic kowledge base and get people hooked on it. Then it will be easy to change facts and history by cutting and pasting. All information on any reliable resource should have an identifiable author and references. Wikipedia is Orwellian in nature.

Does this cross linking with Wikipedia help increase search engine ranking and position? Does each publisher need to define his article or business type in Wikipedia to achieve this link