Talk:Google Sidewiki

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Google Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Google To-do:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

No comments?[edit]

Did the comments get deleted, or has no one done anything but template this page yet? Mathiastck (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? Yes.[edit]

I don't like the idea one bit. There. I said it. Don't everybody start throwing rocks all at once now. Aftermath (68.224.178.2 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Speaking of Rocks, a few need to be thrown at Google for once again raizing us (in restriction of a word I WILL not use) of the ability to customize our own browsing experience, and reminding US exactly who's "in charge".

Unbalanced opinion[edit]

The article effectively criticises Sidewiki for not being controllable by the site owner, ignoring the view that this may actually be a good thing.

It seems to me the whole point is to enable visitors to a website to post comments, be they positive or negative, as long as they aren't abusive. If webmasters could disable it, it would be the dream of dodgy dealers and those with an agenda to spread lies, among others.

Of course, this is just my view. But there must be arguments out there that we can cite as sources in favour of Sidewiki being this way. -- Smjg (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Sidewiki?[edit]

Are there any good alternatives? The Foresight Institute used to run Crit.org, but that died years ago. The current website is totally unrelated.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sidewiki was not like StumbleUpon and Delicious[edit]

I have removed a phrase which said that StumbleUpon and Delicious are just like Sidewiki. It was as follows:

though that ability was already provided by StumbleUpon and Delicious (Bernoff, Josh (September 30, 2009). "Google's SideWiki: Don't Say We Didn't Warn You". Digital Next. Advertising Age. Retrieved September 9, 2010.)

First of all, for a source to be a reliable source, it needs to be a “published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” The linked article claims that “Will [Sidewiki] catch on? Yes.” — something that never happened. Side Wiki languished and was dead within two years. The linked article is not reliable because it was ultimately inaccurate.

Second of all, neither StumbleUpon or Delicious have Sidewiki-style commenting. With StumbleUpon, finding the comments for an article using their toolbar requires making two or three clicks, and takes you to a separate web page, instead of showing the comments next to the webpage in question (the way Sidewiki did). I could not find any way to find comments for an article with Delicious, much less have them appear next to a web page. Perhaps they had this functionality back in 2009, but the inaccurate linked article only mentions it as an aside; its entire mention of the matter is that “This is quite similar to what StumbleUpon and Delicious enable” without going in to any detail about how those commenting systems worked at the time.

This in mind, I have removed this phrase. It is not from a reliable source, and treating an aside in an opinion piece as a fact violates WP:UNDUE. If anyone wants to restore it, please find an article from a reliable source which contrasts and compares Side Wiki’s commenting with the website commenting StumbleUpon and/or Delicious had. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New similar Google product, notes in search as experiment[edit]

https://blog.google/products/search/notes-google-search-labs-experiment/ Mathiastck (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]