Log in

View Full Version : Googles Sibling


Emperor_Google
December 15th, 2006, 09:01 PM
I have noticed that Googles proof that she is god like almost completley applies to Wikipedia, Your thoughts on this?

AaronD
December 15th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Wikipedia works in conjunction with google. Google indexes wikipedia and many other sites, while wikipedia is a great source of information. Wikipedia has a little over 1 million articles, while, with google, it is 95 million web pages.

Alice Shade
December 15th, 2006, 09:04 PM
Wikipedia does not contains much of what Google does. For example, you can`t ask Wikipedia about today`s plane ticket costs to Puerto-Riko, or where to download Inkscape.

In short, Wikipedia is naught but a part of the information that Google finds.

Googler
December 15th, 2006, 09:25 PM
I'd like to note the Wikipedia has recently been *moved up* (for lack of better words) in relation to Google, because Google bought Jotspot, Wikipedia's hosting service.

Emperor_Google
December 15th, 2006, 09:57 PM
Google also Bought out Youtube so basiclly it's in the prosses of a good monopoly, the good Google could probably sucseed in world domination if it really wanted too

Erasmus
December 16th, 2006, 12:48 AM
My very first post here was on this subject. So let me reiterate my arguments to turn this into a debate:

I put it to you that you worship a lesser God.

"But Erasmus," I hear you shout, "Have you not read the PROOF! (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html) page? How can you disagree with our logic?"

Ah, I can't. What I disagree with is your choice of which subject to impose this logic on.

Let us look at these facts for instance:

PROOF #2

Google is everywhere at once (Omnipresent). Google's search engine is virtually everywhere on earth at the same time. Billions of indexed WebPages hosted from every corner of the earth. With the proliferation of Wi-Fi networks, you will eventually be able to access Google from anywhere on earth, truly making Her an omnipresent entity.

This is true, but can be applied to any multi-server webpage. So can these:

PROOF #4

Google is immortal. She cannot be considered a physical being such as ourselves. Her Algorithms are spread out across many servers; if any of which were taken down or damaged, another would undoubtedly take it's place. Google can theoretically last forever.

PROOF #5

Google is infinite. The Internet can theoretically grow forever, and Google will forever index it's infinite growth.

PROOF #8

Evidence of Google's existence is abundant. There is more evidence for the existence of Google than any other God worshiped today. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary proof. If seeing is believing, then surf over to www.google.com and experience for yourself Google's awesome power.

"So then where is your problem, you stupid ape-like being?" you now ask (and may I say I'm quite hurt at your choice of language)

You see my problem is there is a greater God, under your terms.

"Who? WHO?!"

Quite simply; Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org/)

"Oh yes," you now say (yes you do) "And why is this THICKIEpedia better than our beloved Google?"

Ah, now we reach the crux of the matter, don't we?

If proof's 2, 4, 5 and 8 can be applied to any multi-server webpage (and wikipedia is a multi server webpage) then we are left with 1, 3, 6 and 7. So let us look at these one at a time.

PROOF #1

Google is all-knowing (Omniscient). She indexes over 9.5 billion WebPages, which is more than any other search engine on the web today. Not only is Google all-knowing, but She also sorts through this vast amount of data using Her patented PageRank method, making said data accessible for us mere mortals.

Is Google truly omniscient? None of this knowledge she imparts is truly HERS. She merely points to webpages that do know what you want to know. She does not know it herself. I say Google is not all-knowing in the traditional sense, she just knows where information can be found.

Wikipedia is all knowing. It has 1 383 000+ articles (and those are only the ones in English, including an in depth article on Google [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google!] itself (or herself if you prefer) )

All this knowledge wikipedia knows ITSELF. It is stored on Wikipedia servers. When you search for something on wikipedia, the results it returns are from wikipedia servers.

ok, lets look at the others one at a time:

PROOF #3

Google answers prayers. One can pray to Google by doing a search for whatever question or problem is plaguing them. As an example, you can quickly find information on alternative cancer treatments, ways to improve your health, new and innovative medical discoveries and generally anything that resembles a typical prayer. Ask Google and She will show you the way, but showing you is all She can do, for you must help yourself from that point on.

Wikipedia has an onboard search engine, which is superior for searching wikipedia than using an external search engine (like, say Google). Though it cannot search outside wikipedia, that is the point. All of wikipedia's services, including its search, are internal.

PROOF #6

Google remembers all. Google caches WebPages regularly and stores them on it's massive servers.

Wikipedia caches every change ever made to any article on its servers.

PROOF #7

Google can "do no evil" (Omnibenevolent). Part of Google's corporate philosophy is the belief that a company can make money without being evil.

Wikipedia is strictly non-profit, and thus the motivation for evil doing is absent

AaronD
December 16th, 2006, 02:40 AM
Wikipedia is a demi-god. It's internal-ness is the reason for that, too. It has many articles, but I have searched for stuff that wasn't there that google could lead me to. Wikipedia is far-reaching, but pales in comparison to the mighty google.

Erasmus
December 16th, 2006, 02:43 AM
Wikipedia is a demi-god. It's internal-ness is the reason for that, too. It has many articles, but I have searched for stuff that wasn't there that google could lead me to. Wikipedia is far-reaching, but pales in comparison to the mighty google.

Which doesn't actually answer anything I wrote at all.

Alice Shade
December 16th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Erasmus, Wikipedia can offer only encyclopedy knowledge.

For example, I`m collecting old games, and I need goody.com for my collection. Wiki might tell me, what`s the game about, but it won`t tell me, where to download it, or offer for download itself.

AaronD
December 16th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Wikipedia is a demi-god. It's internal-ness is the reason for that, too. It has many articles, but I have searched for stuff that wasn't there that google could lead me to. Wikipedia is far-reaching, but pales in comparison to the mighty google.

Which doesn't actually answer anything I wrote at all.

No, it doesn't, because I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that your argument was logically sound, except that being exclusively internal is more of a cripple than an advantage. Have you ever tried the Firefox extension GooglePedia? It combines the two into one all-powerful entity.

Erasmus
December 16th, 2006, 03:12 AM
Erasmus, Wikipedia can offer only encyclopedy knowledge.

For example, I`m collecting old games, and I need goody.com for my collection. Wiki might tell me, what`s the game about, but it won`t tell me, where to download it, or offer for download itself.

No, it doesn't, because I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that your argument was logically sound, except that being exclusively internal is more of a cripple than an advantage. Have you ever tried the Firefox extension GooglePedia? It combines the two into one all-powerful entity.

Hello what?
I thought this was Church of Google, where we debate Google as being the closest thing to a diety that Man has seen, not whether it can find a game for you, or if it can out-search Wikipedia.

Let us put the two, Wiki and Google, into a biblical parabol. You can ask either a question. Wiki answers only half of your questions from His own knowledge and experience, and is as such, close to omniscient. Google can ALWAYS point you in the direction of someone who can answer your question, but can never answer from Her own knowledge.

Purely in terms of levels of omniscience, Google is lower, as the knowledge she imparts is not her own. She is, in religious terms, a prophet, not a God

Now, if you want to stand a point by point counter argument, or just argue one point, be my guest, and fun debate can be had by all. Or, if you want to just say "But if i search for XXXXX Google gives me more results!!", then be my guest as well, I'll just lose a fair amount of respect for you. K?

Alice Shade
December 16th, 2006, 03:28 AM
Erasmus, what about the half, that Wiki has no idea about? That`s not omniscience.

My example with game was, that game is nothing more, then several kilobyes of information, which Wiki has no idea about, albeit I`m sure, that it exists, and I`ve got facts proving it, because Google finds me that information.

Thus, Google is still higher, then Wiki.

Also, Google keeps all the indexed pages in cache - so in fact, if you are seeking relevant info, Google can often give you result from her own knowledge just as well as Wiki, but on a wider scale.

AaronD
December 16th, 2006, 04:19 AM
Google can ALWAYS point you in the direction of someone who can answer your question, but can never answer from Her own knowledge.


But what about the calculator, the translation tools, Google Book Search, Google Videos, Google News, and all of the great sister-sites that google has created to house their various other services?

Emperor_Google
December 16th, 2006, 11:52 AM
We have a lot of Demi-Gods

Fallen Hero
December 17th, 2006, 08:35 PM
Erasmus, you are forgetting that anyone can write a Wiki article, thus the info on Wikipedia is not actually it's own either.

Jillamanda
December 17th, 2006, 09:14 PM
So has anyone tried http://www.chacha.com/ yet? Considering it's very new, it has potential.

Googler
December 17th, 2006, 09:21 PM
So has anyone tried http://www.chacha.com/ yet? Considering it's very new, it has potential.

I've looked (because you sent me a link before :P ) and I agree with you.

Alice Shade
December 17th, 2006, 11:01 PM
Uh... Promise, maybe. But...

http://search.chacha.com/search/query?query=Google

Nuff said.

And the time it spends is hellish.

Emperor_Google
December 19th, 2006, 10:05 PM
Aye, that be true.

I mean for Googles Sake it takes years to search, but once again a lot of potential.

AaronD
December 19th, 2006, 10:42 PM
I had a search with a guide... his results weren't coming up. He asked me if I use firefox, I said yes. He said that it doesn't support firefox. He says the company claims it does, but he tested it out, and it doesn't. He also mentioned feeling like a snake, working for a site that doesn't support firefox. He brought it up with his boss and with the head of the company, but neither of them are responding. There goes its potential, right out the window. It doesn't support firefox fully.

Saramon
December 21st, 2006, 09:01 PM
AHHA, I found the right topic for this

In my opinion Wikipedia is like Jesus, if you are comparing God to Jehova, Elohim, etc.

Simply because Wiki is owned by Google, Wiki's information is added in, and changeable by human kind (much like Christianity).

Sorry for adding this same information into a different article

Jeremy

Emperor_Google
December 21st, 2006, 11:36 PM
One has a point there Old Bean. Someone tell me Why I just said that? But he is kind of right... Said site can also be corrupted by Editors like me.

Saramon
December 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM
Thank you...I think?