Why is Knol Compared to Wikipedia?
Everyone has been saying that Knol is the new Wikipedia. But is this comparison fair — or at least accurate?
I’m going to tell you what I think.
Knol is the new Squidoo
Let me tell you why I think so:
- A single topic can be discussed in multiple knols, exactly as seen on Squidoo’s lenses. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, only allows one entry per topic.
- Everyone can edit Wikipedia. Lenses can only be edited by their respective lensmasters. Knols can only be edited by their respective authors, or upon their approval.
- Knollers are given full credit for their work, just like lensmasters. Wikipedia’s articles can’t have their authorship claimed by any individual.
- Knols can be rated and commented on; this also happens on Squidoo’s lenses. Wikipedia’s entries can be flagged for revision and are regularly reviewed by contributors, but this is much more of a behind-the-scenes activity.
With so many similarities between Knol and Squidoo — and so many essential differences between Knol and Wikipedia –, I must return to this post’s title: why is Knol compared to Wikipedia? And why isn’t it compared to Squidoo instead?
It’s a matter of relevance
Think about it: when you need to research any topic, which site do you go to? Wikipedia or Squidoo? I guess you either said “Wikipedia, of course!” or “None; I prefer Google.” In both cases, it’s clear that Squidoo hasn’t consolidated its position as a reference source. Besides, Squidoo is often slapped by Google. Apparently, Google sees lenses as pages that don’t provide much value to readers — perhaps because some lensmasters are less interested in sharing actual knowledge and more interested in making some quick bucks. As a result, it seems that Squidoo isn’t deemed to be a relevant contender. But Wikipedia is.
Even when you choose Google as a starting point for your researches, chances are that you’ll find links to Wikipedia on the search results pages — most likely at the top spots. So, sooner or later you’ll end up at Wikipedia anyway. Once Wikipedia isn’t in it for the money, you won’t see any ads over there.
The problem is that Google is in it for the money. They want to show you their ads. But they can’t have them displayed at Wikipedia, the famous, respected site that most people visit nowadays when they need to learn more about most subjects. And Google has no excuses to slap Wikipedia and make it vanish from its result pages. If there’s a site that complies with Google’s webmaster guidelines, this is Wikipedia.
You see, Google sends tons of free traffic to a competitor that will never use AdWords — because it doesn’t need to pay for promotion — and won’t serve AdSense ads — because it’s a non-profit site. Consequently, this competitor grows stronger and stronger.
Google is using its power to beat Wikipedia in a “justifiable” manner
So, what could Google do about it? Easy: build a site that supposedly improves on Wikipedia’s concept and find a way to get lots of people to create content for it. This is why knollers are given exposure and some money (via AdSense) in return for creating knols. It’s called bribery. And it works. Especially because people aren’t fool; they know that Knol is very likely to outrank Wikipedia. After all, Knol belongs to Google. In fact, some webmasters have already reported very positive results for their first Knol experiments. We all knew it would happen. And this is why so many people in the industry have been kissing Wikipedia goodbye. They are well aware of the fact that Knol isn’t really a encyclopedia. But they also know Google’s newest project has been designed to work as an authoritative repository of information and knowledge, just like its main competitor.
By giving generous ranks to knols, Google will make Internet users perceive them as valuable resources. As time goes by, people will rely more and more on Knol. Therefore, there won’t be reasons to give Wikipedia so many good spots on search result pages — and the same applies to all other potential rivals. Eventually, Google will retain the audience and make even more money from it, because visitors will leave Google Search to enter another Google property. And our do-no-evil friends will claim that their plan is entirely legitimate, for knols will be assumed to provide true value to readers.
Now let’s see how things evolve. May spammers kill Knol before it becomes the go-to informational resource that Google wants it to be? Will Wikipedia fall into oblivion if it loses its privileged search engine rankings? Does my post sound as a silly conspiracy theory? Tell me what you think; leave a comment.
You can also discuss the whole Knol vs. Wikipedia issue at the Search Engine Forum.
