Google Tiptoes onto Wikipedia's Turf
Last week, Google quietly put out the word about Google Knol, a new user-generated content site that enables "experts" to pen articles about topics they know. There was no official press release, nor interviews with the media. Just this short blog post.
Google is positioning Knol as the next logical step in their quest to organize all the world's knowledge. Knols will be html pages that include information about a topic along with various links. In that sense, they're similar to a Squidoo Lens or a Mahalo page. The Knol platform will also include community aspects, so readers can rate a Knol or review it.
In order to motivate users to write Knols, they will also support advertising with the revenues shared by Google and the Knol author.
While Squidoo and Mahalo are the models that Google seems to be following, one can't help but think that it's Wikipedia who is the real focus of their attention. Alexa ranks Wikipedia as the 8th most visited site, while it ranks Squidoo 714th and pegs Mahalo at 3,614. Clearly, for it to move Google's needle, Knol will need to get Wikipedia-like traffic.
And that's where the controversy comes. With Google controlling more than 80% of the search traffic these days, how will it determine the page rank of Knol pages? Will Knol pages get a better rank than a comparable Mahalo or Squidoo page?
TMCNet's Rich Tehrani sees the combination of Knols, Wikipedia and Answers.com listings dominating search rankings and squeezing out the little guy:
This move just means it will be that much more difficult for smaller players to show up on search results. Keep in mind these companies will be forced to buy more and more Google ads as this happens. So for Google this is truly a win/win scenario.
Meanwhile, Wired's Scott Gilbertson doesn't see a threat to Wikipedia, asking how users will know that the author of a Knol is truly an authoritative source:
Without that system of trust knols may still have value — only time will tell — but it isn’t likely to spell doom for Wikipedia.
Comments