Google is the new Microsoft from years past. They have the Pinky and The Brain syndrome in full force. No worries the EU will step in soon enough.

"giving them the option of putting ads on the entries they author" -- This factoid brought to you by Acme, your source for Rocket Powered Roller-skates.

@WilCon: Wow I had to go to Wikipedia to get that reference: "In each episode, Brain devises a new plan for the two mice (led by Brain) to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure."

It is always more interesting when there is more than one player in the game. We should see some interesting developments in this area in the next few months and this will be welcome to all of us.

It should also pave the way for more players to enter the contest, maybe a merge/blend with a social site to emerge as a hybrid something or other that will be the next killer application/program.

Ahh what a great time to be in the industry.

Wikipedia doesn't have a credibility issue in regards to getting the facts right (see the Nature Magazine report of several years ago): same accuracy as Britannica.

Now author ID I is understandable. If Google gets into the global ID game (a la OpenID), that's the win (maybe)... not Knol.

@Windhawk: Actually, the Brain did succeed at one point, but gave it away to wish people a Merry Christmas.

I didn't know wikipedia was a problem. Knowing the author isn't going to change much (is google going to validate claims of PHD's or expertise? If not, what does it matter?). I predict an endless pissing contest about how qualified each author is, and why they should be the author of every single entry.

G-money should spend their time and cash on a problem that someone isn't already solving.

I've been wondering what was up with [JotSpot.com] ever since Google acquired it. Will Knols be an implementation of this technology?

Knol, please, another name..

I wonder if the Knols for Korea will be censored just as Google for Korea is. Do a lookup for "U.S. humanitarian aid" and get, "no such information exists" as your result. Hooray for the freedom of knowledge.

Google. Eating the internet one webpage at a time.

Yeah, I also have to say that Google's acting very microsoftian if this is indeed their goal. Wikipedia is perfect at what it does, why should they try and compete with it?

Now Fox News will have two avenues to re-edit history.

Once people start using the word "Wiki" as a verb, it's too late to compete..

From wikipedia:

Knol is a website that features user-generated articles. It has been described as a rival to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.[1][2][3]

The site, which is owned by Google[4] is in private beta, meaning that requests to create "knols" are currently by invitation only.

In contrast to Wikipedia, each page will be written by a single author and cannot be edited by others. Also, there would be multiple articles for the same topic. Udi Manber of Google has stated that creators will be able to decide whether advertisements will appear on their knols, and that there will be a "substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads" given to authors.

@Gann: "Multiple articles for the same subject?" Wow. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's pretty silly and inefficient.

Gizmodo, you better watch out. You may be next...

@SonOfMagicFact:

"Multiple articles for the same subject?" Wow. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's pretty silly and inefficient.

Actually, that could be pretty great. Rather than have multiple authors duke it out on one page, with the result a frankensteinien compromise, different author's views would be clearly distinguished from one another, with a rating system that would enable the most accepted entry to float to the top, supplemented by clearly delineated other points of view.

But I also agree with Crash's comment above that this could degenerate into a pissing contest among author qualifications.

I wouldn't say it's too late for Google to compete, though it does seem uphill. Google will most likely integrate Knol into Google Search.(i.e. When you search for something, it'll search Knol as well, with results displayed inline.) So even if Knol is less complete than Wikipedia, they can slowly add entries to it, and people will still be using it, simply because they use Search. Google also knows exactly what words/phrases get searched the most often, so they can specifically ask/hire people to write articles on those subjects. So...difficult? Yes. Too late to compete? It's never too late. (And if you are wondering, yes, I like Wikipedia...but only because it's the current best of its kind. ;P)

@SonOfMagicFact: i concur. see below.

@frigg: i don't think people want 8 different takes on something factual though. if they did, they'd use this search engine called google.

i could be wrong but i'm not seeing the value here to anyone but google and their shareholders.

Wikipedia...there is none higher. I doubt Google will be able to unseat them...

@Paradise: The problem is that what is "factual" is often disputed. With Googlepedia, you can clearly see which "fact" is attributed to what source.

But you make a good point - so why not just google the internet?

This seems like a sea change for Google to not just link to outside information, but to attract the world's information into its own gullet. By encouraging authors through profit, Google is not just competing with Wikepedia, it's potentially competing with the internet itself.

So which is more "evil" -

a giant computer conglomerate that acquires companies like bits of loose change, or;

a website that claims to be the repository of human knowledge and learning with absolutely no credentialing or verification system in place

Hmmm. I wonder what will happen. Oh yeah! Google will compete with wikipedia for a while. Then absorb them into their giant web blob. Don't get me wrong. I suck the google teet all day long.

I'll know that Knol has overtaken wikipedia when my standard search of "[insert word here] wiki" becomes "[insert word here] knol"

@ripfire4: Carrie Bradshaw never uttered the word "wiki", in either noun or verb form.

Her use of the word "googling" was a cultural watershed moment for Google - when it was abundantly clear that it had unseated the dead 800 lb. gorilla of search, Yahoo.

That is the size difference between Google and Wikipedia.

Is this perhaps the next step into google maknig a non-government controlled internet of its own? Knol-Net: the internet for the people? It's in line with the bid intention on the new wireless spectrum, and the current ownership of all that dark fiber...

Googmodo is a site where ad driven bots rhapsodize over things they wish they could buy from Froogle, so they can film them for YouTube.

Embrace and Extend 2.0

90% of all knols will be exact replicas of the same wiki. How is google going to compete with something that took 6 years of people typing to create. Without simply stealing from wikipedia I don't see how google can get enough info to compete with wikipedia. Google does seem to take good stuff and make it better though so we'll see what happens.

@omg-ponies: "That is the size difference between Google and Wikipedia."
It's also the time difference. Sex In The City is pretty old at this point. When they were filming it, Wiki had yet to achieve the critical mass that Google was just then achieving. At the time, Google was the hip reference and Wiki wasn't even on the radar.

If they made the show today, they'd probably be making references to wiki instead of Google, since Wiki currently has more hip cachet and Google is as established and unhip as, well, Sarah Jessica Parker.

@lladnar: "I don't see how google can get enough info to compete with wikipedia."

Four simple words: Fine Nanchell In Sentives.

If you're a smart person who knows stuff, here's an easy way to make a few bucks.

Richard Stallman's gonna bitch.

and, furthermore,
cry.

This is like the time Sony decided it would be a good idea to try their hand at making a handheld gaming console. Some things, you just shouldn't attempt.

The idea of having registered users that declare their background has the potential to improve the diversity of opinion within a Knol article. The collective community viewing a Knol article can quickly see if the content is largely the efforts of professional academic contributors, or if it reflects the "wisdom of crowds" in a more diverse profile of contribution. As to the page-rank placement... Google would be compromising the neutral algorithms it is based on if it gave unfair placement to Knol materials over any other. Now that would not preclude a new form of sponsor link (specially made for Knol)... :-)

Why can't google fack off?

@antidayjob:
Searching Wikipedia is so old-school. Just jump directly to the article on the subject. In Firefox (and I think Opera and Safari), bookmark "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s", give it keyword 'w', and then just
    [Ctrl-L]w Pinky and the Brain
Direct jump to Wikipedia has reduced my use of Google about 20%. That's the only reason Google has created Knol to "solve" this problem.

Google hasn't said how they'll identify researchers. I'll write my own take on subjects as a distinguished academic with four doctorates who consults with world leaders, meanwhile commenting on my competitors "This guy's a lying high-school dropout!" So Google needs publicly verifiable IDs, and you can bet it'll be their own system, not OpenID.