Most likely not. Google has set out to deploy knol - it's Wikipedia-killing service, the question is how successful will this service be? Google has rolled out many a service whose success or adoption has been less than stellar (pick your own example) and knol may just be one more.
From a marketing standpoint this is a classic case in which a brand defines a category and Google = search whereas Wikipedia = online encyclopedia. Also, Google is not trying to grow by adjacency (i.e. by rolling out product extensions that are close to its core brand identity of "search") but by leaps into further categories (e.g. productivity software a la MS Office that is not close to "search"). Add to this the fact that Google has lacked Microsoft's persistence in succeeding in categories it choses to win, and we have another product that seems geared more to satisfy Wall Street analysts than to actually dominate a category.
I hope Google does not go down that road. I really like Wikipedia.
Posted by: Wanda | January 08, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Please yes Google, kill Wikipedia. For those who haven't ever tried to participate in Wikipedia, here is the sociology of it in a nutshell.
People work hard to edit an article. A long term denizen of Wikipedia- a "wikignome" - comes along, tears it down or deletes it, citing something like "non notable subject matter".
A battle ensues between the parties. The long term denizens, the "gnomes" use their superior knowledge of the processes involved in "adjudication of conflict" in wikipedia - and their long standing friendships with judges, or "admins" -to have their way , mostly without real discussion.
End of article. If the editor persists, it's end of editor or "banning". This has happened with such frequency to what later embarrassingly turned out to be real world experts, that scholars and people of serious intent stopped taking Wikipedia seriously years ago. It generally cannot be cited in journals articles or even children's schoolwork.
Essentially, Wikipedia is run like a third world dictatorship where the well connected - those who have been there a long time- support each other for advancement to "admin" status ( judges in disputes - real power in Wikipedia ) a status which is achieved by making a certain number of edits and then being voted on (at which time chits are called in).
Over time these people have formed a junta which always support each other and will not let outsiders edit or contribute to any serious degree.
The rules, a depressing number of which are concerned with "dispute resolution", are well-meaning and a processes of sorts in place. But this is enforced by none other than the admins, who generally will not contradict each other. The result is, the "rules" are perverted at every turn against new editors or would-be participants.
So groups of like-minded control freaks with nothing better to do with their time (and apparently no social life- some editors have 50,000 and more edits) spend 3 and 4 hours a day upping their edit counts, which advances them to admin, and bullying anyone they decide they don't like because of the content (not the quality) of the article, or their personality, political orientation , or - the greatest offense of all, disagreeing with one of them. The hapless but sincere editor who accidentally runs up against a well connected long-timer )a gnome) will wonder where the angry mob and hanging judge suddenly appeared from.
Wikipedia is the purest expression of what is created when there is no centralized control whatsoever. It's populated by an assortment of alliance forming, purpose perverting, rule-twisting, power seeking and just plain defective personalities you're likely to find on the web.
Serious contributers are of course repelled by this atmosphere which they find unfathomable, and quickly leave.
The flaw here is giving the power to delete someone else's work to just anyone. What that attracts is people who crave power and especially the power to frustrate others. These Wikipedians, as they call themselves, learned some time ago that if they support each other, they could control the place as they "advance towards admin". When a conflcit arises, they can count on their alliances to rendered the required "judgment".
As an encyclopedia, it's a pathetic failure bristling with inaccuracies, mind-boggling misrepresentations and horrendous untruths. As a sociological experiment, it's an object lesson in what not to do.
Google learned that basic lesson- let people of goodwill contribute and thank them graciously by not deleting their work, at least. And that's how we can all just get along.
Posted by: daes shanna | January 10, 2008 at 03:18 PM
I think that wikipedia will continue as one of the majors knowledge platform!
The notoriety is huge, and that is difficult to beat.
Posted by: Bruno - Inovação & Marketing | January 14, 2008 at 05:42 AM
I hear the argument for both sides, and yet I feel both encyclopedias are good ideas. It's not such a bad thing to have two separate models, and let the public use which they prefer. More options to be happy about.
Hmm... For some reason it just sounds more romantic to kill in this country. Kill Kill Kill! Wikipedia is a terrorist. Go Google! :)
Posted by: ryan | February 11, 2008 at 01:46 AM
I hear the argument for both sides, and yet I feel both encyclopedias are good ideas. It's not such a bad thing to have two separate models, and let the public use which they prefer. More options to be happy about.
Hmm... For some reason it just sounds more romantic to kill in this country. Kill Kill Kill! Wikipedia is a terrorist. Go Google! :)
Posted by: ryan | February 11, 2008 at 01:47 AM
I totally agree with Wanda.. these 'admins' will just come and ban you if they dont agree with your point of view without giving you a proper redressal forum. If you request more explanation on why your edit was not correct, they will tell you you were banned because you posted this content and theadmin didnt agree with you. I understand why I was banned, but why was the content objectionable? Well dont ask that question, they will ban you from wikipedia totally(temporarily at first) so you cant ask any questions of them. This autocratic, control freakish behavior is a sign of delusional grandeur one achieves at 4 am after having finished a 2 lbs Dorritos bag. These 'admin's run the show and they make more than 50% of all edits (0.7% of all people make more than 50% of all edits).
Posted by: TheEnticer | April 02, 2008 at 12:09 AM
There are different ways to market a product or service on the web. However,the bottom line of any new product marketing strategy is to make targeted clients or customers visit or at least stumble the site that is being promoted. Online marketing can be done through emails, blogs, online advertisements, back linking, and other SEO techniques.
Posted by: Catherine Moore | October 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I hope that this is not true because I like visiting the Wikipedia page because it has tons of information that useful not only to me but to all the visitors Wikipedia has. I think its hard to get rid of a good website like Wikipedia and Google knows it.
Posted by: | October 12, 2009 at 07:50 PM