Competitor to Wikipedia by Google

[SensoVision]

It seems that Google lately adopt a lot of popular ideas for projects powered by communities. This time it seems that Google decide to develop own version of Wikipedia which would give people a way to contribute articles with illustrations and create knowledge base on various topics. Wonder if it would be able to compete with Wikipedia which grow to large size and already very popular and have it's own community of contributors.

By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service, 12/14/07

Google is developing an online publishing platform where people can write entries on subjects they know, an idea that's close to Wikipedia's user-contributed encyclopedia but with key differences.
The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said.

Google wants the knols to develop into a deep repository of knowledge, covering topics such as geography, history and entertainment.

Google's project will have to catch up with Wikipedia, which includes more than 7 million articles in 200 languages. Anonymous users constantly update Wikipedia entries in an ever-growing online encyclopedia that's edited by a network of vetted editors.

But Google asserts that the Web's development so far has neglected the importance of the bylined author.

"We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content," wrote Udi Manber, vice president of engineering, on the official Google blog.

Google said anyone can write about any topic, and repetition of entries on the same subjects is beneficial. Google will provide the Web hosting space, as well as editing tools.

Contributors can choose whether to let Google place ads on the knols. Google said it will give the contributors a "substantial" portion of the revenue generated by those ads. While Wikipedia lacks ads, keyword advertising has underpinned Google's growth.

Entries can't be edited or revised by other people, in contrast to Wikipedia. However, other readers will be able to rank and review others' entries, which will then be interpreted by Google's search engine when displaying results.

The concept of peer-reviewed information is nothing new and is implemented in different ways on various Web sites. Yahoo, for example, has an "Answers" feature where users can ask questions, and the response is ranked on quality. Also, most blogs have forms where readers can comment on the author's entry.

Source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/121407-google-develops-wikipedia.html

[donecweb]

I wonder how many others will feel as I do about Google doing such a thing. I would avoid using such a site if possible just because it is from Google. To me they are getting so big they are feeling to me like MS and for that reason I no longer trust them. They are just too powerful.

[SensoVision]

I'm not very excited that they try to dominate every possible area of the web you may think of but that's what money with good management could do.

To me they are getting so big they are feeling to me like MS and for that reason I no longer trust them.

In my eyes Google is still better than MS as his project support community in some way even if it's cause harm to other community projects.
You may trust them or not but their search engine remain the leader and still provide good SERPs isn't it I still using it myself along with Yahoo and guess that if alternative to Wikipedia would appear I'll use it as well to if wouldn't be able to find something on Wiki.

[Queen Bee]

I'm not opposed to competition. Whether it comes from Google or another source, it is good to eliminate monopolization from the market (even though Wikipedia is non-profit...) I look forward to seeing what happens.