Head Tale

Five Things Google Could Learn From Wikipedia
1. More Isn't Always Better. 
Wikipedia is like a streamlined Google and more and more frequently, provides the quick factual answer to any question you might have in a way that Google no longer does.  Do I need to know that my search for “GW Bush” returned 250 million results when a single Wikipedia page has probably all the basic information about him that I need?

2.  Users Are Power
Google should harness the (volunteer) power of its users.  Why can't Google visitors rank and/or tag search results (or even comment on them) to make them even more accurate and useful than they already are?

3. Categorization is a good thing. 
Why aren't Google web results grouped or searchable by at least the most basic level – “personal web page/blog”, “commercial site”, “organizational site”, “educational site”.  We know this is possible – they screen out adult-themed sites via their Safe Search feature.  This categorization could also be accomplished by user voting and/or via an algorithm that checks for certain keywords on a page to determine which category the site most likely fits into. 

4.  Immediacy Is Vital On The Web
Due to its need to spider for content, Google often takes some time to add new content, even on its “Google News” page.  This could be minutes, hours or days depending on the site or topic.  On the other hand, because users come to it, Wikipedia tends to have nearly instantaneous updates on any current news story or other topic of interest. 

5. When You're Big and Powerful, People Don't Trust You
Google's mantra may be “Don't Be Evil” but when you reach a certain size and level of power, people will eventually begin to distrust you, especially if you start doing things (like censoring search results in China) that reek of putting financial bottom-line ambitions above your stated principles.  You can debate the quality and accuracy of its content all day but a site like Wikipedia, structured as a non-profit organization and open to editing by anyone, is much less likely to raise these concerns with people which is why it appears that we're seeing a sea change from Google to Wikipedia as the main starting point for information searches online. 

Five Things Wikipedia Could Learn From Google  
1. More Is Often Better. 
Although Wikipedia's guidelines specify a variety of reasons why articles may be deleted (including “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information“),
they should error on the side of inclusiveness and open up their site
to be more inclusive of pages, even if they don't fit their criteria
exactly.  How else will they become, in the words of founder Jimmy
Wales, a repository for “the sum of all human knowledge.”

2. The Best Is Better Than The Latest
Very
loosely, because its algorithm works that every link to a site counts
as a “vote” for the credibility of that site, the best sites tend to
rise to the top of Google rankings.  Wikipedia does something similar
where every edit is (supposedly) refining an entry towards a more
credible state.  But because the change isn't always for the better, it would be better
if Wikipedia users could somehow “vote” for the best version of an
entry over its entire history so not only is the latest version of an
entry available but the “best” version would also be available and
easily recognizable.

[Edit: one idea I saw was to have each entry's text colour-coded so that the darker the shade of the text, the longer it has gone without being edited which would ideally reflect the most accurate information the best.]

3. If You Grow Exponentially, Your Costs Will Too
Although
an IPO like Google's isn't necessarily the answer since Wikipedia is
structured as a non-profit organization, the enormous growth of the
site may require a different business model than “largess of wealthy
founder” mixed with “annual appeal for donations.” 

4. People May Need Help Finding What They're Looking For
It
may seem like a small detail but Wikipedia desperately needs a “Did you
mean…” option for search results like Google has to help with
mis-spelled words or typos.  Right now, Wikipedia gives you very limited options
if you mistytpe even one word.

5.  It's Okay To Have A Sense of Humour
Wikipedia
is a great site but it takes itself very seriously in terms of what its
mission is and how that will be accomplished.  They don't need to have
logos that change for special days or April Fool's Day announcements of
new features.  But a
lighter touch would come across really well and  also be another way to
differentiate it from the dry, serious tone that's associated with
old-fashioned encyclopedias like Britannica.

One Thing They Could Learn From Each Other
I don't know if any two technology companies have been better suited for each other.  There's already been rumours of a strategic partnership and, like the recent YouTube purchase, I think a formal partnership of this type would be an ideal situation. Combine the technological expertise and deep pockets of Google with the open-access  policies and “third wave of the Net” cultural impact of Wikipedia and many good things are guaranteed to happen. 

One Other Thing They Could Learn From Each Other
If you spread yourself too thin, it can hurt you.  Google has released numerous  tools and services.  Some are popular (Gmail, Google Maps) but many others haven't taken off (Google Talk, Froogle).  Wikipedia may be doing something similar with Wikinews, WikiBooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and so on.  It remains to be seen if the community that's grown so supportive of Wikipedia will put the same effort into these other Wikimedia projects.

(If any Google people are reading this, I've got lots of ideas on how to make your company even better and am available for consulting duties!  Call me… )