Google to create knol, similar to wikipedia

[howard]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c366bb70-aa8a-11dc-a779-0000779fd2ac.html
http://www.traffick.com/2007/12/google-launches-wiki-site-death-knol.asp

Interesting the hype this is getting, pretty negative hype against google. In a nut shell, google wants to create its own wikipedia, there would be ads if the authors of the articles wanted them, and the authors would get a share of the $ from them.

What do you think? Is google being unfair competitor? Or are they just being a smart business and taking over new ground as a provider rather than indexer of information?

 

[EricNau]

It doesn't sound like a direct competitor to Wikipedia to me. With "knol" a user would be allowed to create their own webpage and post it within a community. For example, I may want to write a website about my ventures in astrophotography, and I would be the only one that could edit this page. On the other hand, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

So basically, there's two huge differences. Knol is meant to host private websites that only one user can edit, whereas Wikipedia hosts encyclopedia entries that anyone can edit.

They sound like nice compliments actually. If anyone should be worried, it should probably be .Mac & iWeb.

 

[lil'homunculus]

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


Like the CIA, Political hacks and consultants, historical revisionists, homophobes and other miscreants... need I go on? Thank google for raising the bar a little. Competition never hurt anyone, and frankly i do not 'ever' trust one source for my information, not even---macrumors yowsiii!

 

[mkrishnan]

I think bringing up About is apt... the big problem with models like this in the past has been that they quickly degenerated into a niche of writers who wrote in such a way to optimize their revenues (either based on per word fees or advertising clicks / hits). The end result for About is that their pages are generally extremely poor in quality -- I routinely follow a search hit to about.com and find that I know more about the topic than the "expert," which is incredibly frustrating (typically because I really don't know too much about the topic).

The most egregious example I can think of is searching for men's fashion ideas... what you end up finding is just horrid, nonsensical drivel, promulgated almost entirely by sites like about.com.

 

[howard]

I think bringing up About is apt... the big problem with models like this in the past has been that they quickly degenerated into a niche of writers who wrote in such a way to optimize their revenues (either based on per word fees or advertising clicks / hits). The end result for About is that their pages are generally extremely poor in quality -- I routinely follow a search hit to about.com and find that I know more about the topic than the "expert," which is incredibly frustrating (typically because I really don't know too much about the topic).

The most egregious example I can think of is searching for men's fashion ideas... what you end up finding is just horrid, nonsensical drivel, promulgated almost entirely by sites like about.com.

yeah, about.com is ridiculous. every time a search comes up with something on about I just immediately close the window as I have never found anything I need on that site.

I generally feel all is fair in this sort of thing, so i personally have no problem with knol, nor do I have a problem with wikipedia. The issue I think comes about is if knol does get relatively popular, google could take away wikipedia out of the search results, at least thats what some of the news sites have mentioned. That would definitely be unfair, and actually I think it would hurt google in the long run. People use google.com to get the best search results, and if google doesn't provide the best results anymore well...

But if knol does turn out the better source...? I think so long as google.com does what its doing and doesn't start favoring sites that belong to google the company, they will be fine.

 

[EricNau]

The issue I think comes about is if knol does get relatively popular, google could take away wikipedia out of the search results, at least thats what some of the news sites have mentioned. That would definitely be unfair, and actually I think it would hurt google in the long run. People use google.com to get the best search results, and if google doesn't provide the best results anymore well...

I have faith that Google would not do that. Google has always advocated for fair, unbiased search results. The only issue here might be that knol results could be listed before wikipedia results (either due to popularity or Google sponsorship), and that could make wikipedia listings somewhat more difficult to find (although, they would probably still be listed second, so it's not much of an issue at all).

 

[mkrishnan]

True, that is a very valid concern. I would not be surprised if at some point one or more governments try to force Google to break up its search business from some of its other businesses because of the conflict of interest. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

 

[P-Worm]

I don't like Google branching out so far. Pretty soon it seems like they will have complete control over information.

P-Worm

 

[EricNau]

I don't like Google branching out so far. Pretty soon it seems like they will have complete control over information.

P-Worm

I agree that Google has been branching out more than I would prefer, but this project seems far more up Google's alley than Android, Picassa, or Docs.

 

[Jasonbot]

Why doesn't google just buy wikipedia like they bought various other companies!

 

[Unspeaked]

Why doesn't google just buy wikipedia like they bought various other companies!

1. It probably isn't for sale.

2. As had been mentioned, Wikipedia's got its own problems. It probably made more sense for Google to start from scratch and try to develop a better system.