Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
February 11, 2007
Growing Up from Google
Justin Katz
Glenn Reynolds notes another incident of the sort that, in aggregate, have led me away from Google when I, um, google:
The Google property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments against Christian beliefs; but when he turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.'
I've been using GoodSearch, which allows the user to designate a charity that will receive a donation with each use. My searches — which add up, between blogging, my editing job, and general inquisitiveness — benefit Food for the Poor (see ad at left), which has earned $37.85 through the search engine thus far in 2007. That mightn't seem like a lot, but according to the organization's calculations, it's enough to feed four or five families for a month.
In contrast, using Google helps to supply free meals to employees with access to a swimming spa and free doctors onsite.
5:11 PM
| TrackBack (0)
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
One thing that's annoying about Google is that the essentially useless Wikipedia match is close to the top of the search result. What if unsuspecting people take the Wiki entry seriously?
But Google also seems to provide pretty thorough matches on a subject. Does goodsearch do the same, Justin?
Posted by: SusanD at February 12, 2007 7:10 AMThanks for that tip, Justin.
Susan, as for Wikipedia, it's actually not that bad. I've cross-checked some of my history research with what is found on Wikipedia and found that they are no worse or better than Bartleby.com or Expedia.
Of course, you still have to be careful, but Wikipedia is a)free and b)often more in depth on certain topics than other "established" resources. Plus, most articles provide source links etc.
I guess I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
Posted by: Marc Comtois at February 12, 2007 8:53 AMAllah has replied to this controversy on the Blog of the Gods, pointing out that if He hadn't made His religion so militant, it might never have spread so quickly. He's angry at YouTube for removing a video He believes may scare some more people into believing in him. He promises an awful lot of burning if they don't.
Posted by: The Gods at February 12, 2007 3:28 PMSusan,
GoodSearch runs on the Yahoo search engine, so it's very comprehensive. I haven't noticed any difficulty (beyond the Google standard) finding anything for which I've been looking.
Posted by: Justin Katz at February 12, 2007 7:02 PMMarc, I liked Wikipedia until I came across an entry on a subject that I was familiar with (forget what now). The entry was incomplete, inaccurate and seriously biased. If that subject, what others? I appreciate your comment though.
Posted by: SusanD at February 12, 2007 9:53 PMWikipedia is nice if you're looking for some quick info on something you're not familiar with, but I would never take anything stated in it as authoritative (nor am I certain it is intended to be such). Content of entries are often filled with bias, incomplete information, and its overall structure makes it ripe for vandalism, esp. when giving information on unusual or niche subjects.
As for Goodsearch, any alternative to Google is always a good thing.
Posted by: Will at February 12, 2007 10:08 PMIf we can't bring Nick Gisburne back to YouTube, then lets bring Nick's story to the rest of the web!
Posted by: -rich at February 24, 2007 3:43 PMHi, all. I have internet... :)
Posted by: Hip-Hop-man at May 18, 2007 8:14 AM