Talk:Relationship between Google and Wikipedia

Page title

Couldn't this also be called Google's relationship with Wikipedia? Perhaps Google and Wikipedia is most concise and neutral (and alphabetical)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks for the comment. It could be. "Intersection articles" are challenging to title.

For precedent we have lots of intersection medical articles, like at Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS we have HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean which could be "The Caribbean and HIV/AIDS".

Currently the page is "Wikipedia's relationship with Google". I am going to go with your short and alphabetical suggestion to "Google and Wikipedia". Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Knowledge Graph

I've added Knowledge Graph as a See also link for now, but we might want to incorporate this into the article's prose somehow. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Google stock

In 2008 the audit reported that the WMF gained and sold 72 shares of Google stock.

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4c/Wikimedia_20072008_fs.pdf
  • KPMG audit

For some reason, the 2009 audit mentions that in the previous year the WMF sold these stock.

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf

Right now the value of that stock would be US$85,000. The report does not mention how much the stock was sold for at the time.

I am not sure of when and how the WMF came to receive this stock. If this was a donation from Google then it seems rather small, and at the time, I expect that Google as a company would have thought it was odd to give stock to an NGO which otherwise was not managing investments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Sometimes stock is given and held in trust instead of giving a donation of cash. Could this have been an example of that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Yes, that part is not unusual. Also this is not such a large amount of money that anyone needs to think too much about it. It looks like in 2008 the stock was worth about $500 a share, so US$36,000. The strange parts are that it seems to have come from Google and not Google.org, and that later gifts got media mentions, and that this came at a time when $36,000 merited a paragraph description in 2 WMF annual reports.

Maybe the most likely explanation is that Google was in a position to give money and someone at Google thought that the Wikipedia ecosystem was a good target to encourage with some pool of a gift budget. I am only noting this in looking for historical records about the relationship between Google and Wikipedia. Maybe there is no published media telling more about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• McMahon, Connor; Johnson, Isaac; Hecht, Brent (3 May 2017). "The Substantial Interdependence of Wikipedia and Google: A Case Study on the Relationship Between Peer Production Communities and Information Technologies". Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 11 (1): 142–151. ISSN 2334-0770.

A lot in this one. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Enterprise

Proposal. From (that is too short):

In June 2022, Google and the Internet Archive were announced as Wikimedia Enterprise's first customers, though only Google will be paying for the service.

To:

In June 2022, Google and the Internet Archive were announced as Wikimedia Enterprise's first customers, though only Google will be paying for the service. The service was created to help organizations who need contractual minimum standards, for example in terms of uptime.

Does it seem OK to you? I hope this will help in avoiding "conspiracy situations" to people who don't know what an API is. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is necessary. Readers can learn more about Wikimedia Enterprise by clicking on that link. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Google and Wikipedia → Google–Wikipedia relations – The current title doesn't seem to be descriptive of what the article is about. A title like Google-Wikipedia relations might be a possible choice although I am open to other titles as well. Interstellarity (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per AfD discussion. France-United States relations is an example on naming convention. Another option is Relationship between Google and Wikipedia, but Google-Wikipedia relations is more concise. - Indefensible (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support (and use dash). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Striking as I've decided I need more time to review our naming convention for relationship related articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose feels like I'd be reading an article about the relations between countries. I'd not be opposed to Relationship between Google and Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Grammatical issues with the title, per Super Dromaeosaurus. The current title is more concise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - while the "X-Y relations" format is primarily used for countries, that doesn't mean it should be exclusively so. "Google and Wikipedia" is far too vague either way, so I'd support any more concise name. Couruu (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unneeded narrowing of scope. This seems a valid topic to discuss interactions involving Google & Wikipedia that aren't "relations." SnowFire (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google isn't a country (yet). 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, don't fire until you see the whites of Google's eyes. The conciseness of the title sums up the page well. And per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this move, but would support moving to Relationship between Google and Wikipedia (as mentioned above) if others agree. – GnocchiFan (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Super Dromaeosaurus et al, –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I liked the suggestion to move the page to Relationship between Google and Wikipedia, so I have gone ahead and done so. I have not done so, however, in my role as a discussion closer, so anyone is welcome to revert my page-move and continue the discussion below. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)