I propose a new definition. A site which is designed as the primary Web property for a person, place, or thing is a power site if the person, place, or thing has a Wikipedia entry but, in popular search engines, the site ranks above that Wikipedia entry. There aren’t very many. But they follow simple patterns.
Persons · The search engines are actually pretty good. Very few people have Power Web Sites, except those who are primarily (at least in part) thought of as bloggers. Such as, for example, Paul Graham and, well, me. But not Tim Berners-Lee, Barack Obama, or Roger Federer. I went poking around media and the arts, and did find one rocker with real Web-site power: Bruce Springsteen. This makes me smile for reasons I can’t fully explain.
Places · Toronto has a power site, but none of Chicago, Tokyo, Paris, or Mumbai do.
The pattern here deserves a bit more study.
Things · Secular institutions, whether they are companies, universities, or political parties, tend overwhelmingly to enjoy power sites (I didn’t manage to turn up any counter-examples). Religions, on the other hand, do not.
Famous things are hit and miss. Power sites: Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, Great Buddha of Kamakura. Lacking power: Great Wall of China, the Kremlin, the Ka’aba, and the Alamo. Things in North America tend to more power; I had to poke around to turn up the Alamo.
It Matters · Having a power site matters: it means that your voice stands out from the crowd, both in the Web in general and of Wikipedians in particular.