From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Google (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Revising Page[edit]

I am revising this page. Please look at my sandbox and offer suggestions. --Acane88 (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC) [[1]]


This article presents only the criticisms of Google's expanding influence, with no mention of any other point of view. If a more neutral tone cannot be achieved, the article may face deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. This term is a pejorative term as it was created for; it has been circulated among the circle of culture and humanities studies and widely recognized. For people who don't go to library, you may also google "googlization" in Google Scholar and confirm the definition; 2. Both McDonaldization and Cocacolonization are pejorative as they are, then why is that Googlization is not a NPOV?; / User: Candidan, 19:21, GMT+01:00, 18 Sep 2008

Two answers: 1. As a pejorative term, the term requires only a mere dictionary definition, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia; try adding it to Wiktionary instead. This article goes beyond merely defining the term, but instead goes into an in-depth analysis of why Google is evil, which is surely a biased opinion. 2. I haven't reviewed those articles. I did review this article, and found its neutrality wanting. Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF to understand why the presence of other poor articles on Wikipedia is not an excuse for the creation of more poor articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, beside the theories from humanities/cultural/media studies, the term Googlization is used randomly and informally from some private blogs and business consultancy sites. I doubt if they meet Wikipedia's standards though. Maybe we can revise the title into Googlization(New Media Studies) to further clarify this page.

I didn't use the word "evil" to describe Google. Don't be evil is actually one of Google's company motoo.

And I don't think the other articles are poor. By saying that I feel it is more like your biased opinion. / User: Candidan, 18:11, GMT+01:00, 20 Sep 2008

This whole article is a funky pov fork. It is about the spread of Google's technology and aesthetics, and the cultural reception they have received. Those are topics for the Google article. The term "Googlization" might be coined in someone's book, but they are still part of the general topic of Google's sociocultural impact and reception. I don't see the need for a separate article, at least not one called "Googlization" rather than Google's social and cultural impact and reception. (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As of August 2011, this article now looks fair and balanced, particularly within the context of all the other Wikipedia Google Inc. articles which are often little more than ads, seemingly maintained (watchlisted) by uncritical Google enthusiasts and cheerleaders. (For example yesterday I merely added the link Criticism of Google to Google Apps's "See Also" section, and it's been reverted already, without comment!) Therefore I don't think moving this to one of the Google Boy's sites would be fair. WE NEED THIS COUNTER-BALANCE TO MAKE A BALANCE. Agree the term "Googlization" seems needlessly pejorative, I'd prefer giving it a more neutral title such as: "The Cumulative Effects of Google Inc's Monopolistic System on the Internet, Commerce, and Society." But that's a small matter...and would add complexity. It seems to me that true Neutrality in most things is impossible, but if truly achieved is too often useless, weaselly mush. So the goal here should not be impossible Neutrality, but enough Neutrality to be meaningful. Part of that is an honest slant that can be user-righted or compensated for, as we have here. By now, every argument here seems to have a counterargument or rebuttal. When seeking Neutrality one must be careful that controversy (or problems) are NOT erased, devalued, or ignored -- as is popular in some circles. ...that is an invalid BIAS!
Therefore I move that either the Neutrality warning box be removed, or that it be added to all the uncritical Google Inc sites. (That is in part because this article is about the cumulative impact of a wide, spreading web or system, not just one thing or one app.)
-- (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
What part of this passage sounds neutral?
Obviously, with that level of success, comes a backlash. There is also the suggestion that Googlization and Google’s market dominance will create a dependence on Google as a means of finding information. It’s been suggested that Google may be able to exploit this fact in a non-ethical manner. Google is also seen as symptomatic of a larger problem, that of people relying too much on Internet search engines to find what they are looking for. Sailorknightwing (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for "The sentiments expressed by both the book and the blog seem to be typical of many cultural commentators." Who are those cultural commentators? This sounds like a non-neutral POV to me. Wiki2187 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Googlization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)