image credit: techrepublic
It has been about a week since the launch of Google Knol, a user-generated knowledge-base project that some have referred to as a Wikipedia-killer, while others put it more in the boat with a Squidoo or Mahalo. Since then, there has been a great amount of press around whether or not Google is making dangerous steps into the content business. People in the web industry are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way recent Google launches (Knol) and acquisitions (YouTube) have set Google up in a position to own valuable real estate in their own search results.
I wanted to get an Organic perspective on the topic, so I asked our resident search guru, Damon Henry, what he thought about these recent developments:
“Anytime Google throws their hat in the ring I take them seriously. Wikipedia is still a leader in this space and will continue to lead for the short term. Google’s official stance is, as always, that this isn’t a competition. But with Wikipedia typically owning the #1 spot on the SERP, Knol may have the same affect on Wikipedia that Google business listings had on Yelp (and other local listing services). As you mentioned, Google could potentially dominate prime real estate on the SERP with Knol, local listing and maps, and Youtube. Scary.
Knol offers a few things that Wikipedia doesn’t such as revenue sharing, private Knols, and Knols based on your experiences as opposed to being non-biased. This may also hurt Knols adoption. The “non-biased” nature of Wikipedia makes it my top source of information.
Finally, I love what Google has been able to accomplish, but I’ve been questioning their motives, particular when it comes to agency relationships. Google is known for directly engaging clients that may not be interactive savvy, and aggressively pushing their agenda. I believe they could be major threat to agencies. I just haven’t figured out exactly how yet. I could go on forever about Google.”
So what’s your take? Is Google adhering to their “don’t be evil” motto or diving head on into murky waters of web evilness?
Marta Strickland
Comments
Connections
I think Damon’s comments are very thoughtful
Great post
I just published my first knol, titled Wikipedia. It might be of interest because of its content, which includes discussions of Wikipedia criticism, along with competitors, including Knol. Also, it’s the first duplicate knol I’ve seen – another article titled Wikipedia was published a few days ago (though it’s pretty much a copy-and-paste job).
Wikipedia has an article about Knol, so it’s only fitting that Knol return the favor. The URL is http://knol.google.com/k/david-blomstrom/wikipedia/1i6e04re3w2kp/5#
* * * * *
A brief summary:
I concluded that Wikipedia and Knol are both seriously flawed – but in different ways. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to create the perfect online reference. Therefore the best solution might be a series of references, each with its own operating policies and conventions.
In the meantime, I’m looking forward to using Knol to focus attention on Wikipedia’s political content, which I believe is far more flawed than most people realize.
David Blomstrom
Candidate for Public Office
& Knolist