Google to Wikipedia: "Knol" thine enemy

Google to Wikipedia: "Knol" thine enemy

arstechnica.com

Google has surely noticed that much of its search traffic is directed to Wikipedia, which regularly has an entry in the top five search results for any particular term. If Google could steer all that traffic toward its own properties instead, and if those properties contained Google ads, and if Google split its revenue with the article creators... well, it's not hard to see why this would start to look pretty good to both Google and content creators, and why such an initiative could ramp up quickly

(visit the link for the full news article)

Google has a pretty clear agenda on this one. Tightening the loop one more notch... Youtube just pulled the "Broadcast Yourself" subtitle from their logo... Trends of control?

arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

it still says broadcast yourself on youtube. in the title bar when your on a search page. and at the main page. you should look at myspace too though. they were recently purchased by rupert murdoch who owns fox news sky channel and various other major news outlets in the world. he supported tony blair blair won he supported bush won he supported the labor party in australia (where his empire began) and they won this last election.

reply to post by justanothergangster


myspace has been owned by NewsCorp which also happens to be owned by fox for a long time now. i have also noticed that in the past years many companies have merged. on example is how ameritech turned to sbc which joined cingular then it became att. dish and att have some kind of an alliance.

Just a slight commentary on the slow changes that are destroying Youtube... Broadcast Yourself being removed from the LOGO is a major red flag... As far as myspace goes... Anyone who thinks any internet site or phone line is secure from the government is in La-la-land. I personally walk a line in all my postings that lets the gov. know that I am free thinking and resisiting without even a hint of violent tendancies. Let 'em try to round up every "progressive" "resistant" person out there. That would make a lot of folks...right and left...join forces against the Fed. Gov. threat.
An even more disturbing trend has emerged on Indymedia sites where Ron Paul is labeled a facist racist and any pro paul postings are kept off the mainpage while slanderous attacks are allowed to run uncensored. Where did the INDY go?

I do not think this will be a success like Wikipedia because this lacks honesty and sincerity. It is not a pure form of knowledge like wikipedia. They (goog) is trying to use advertising to pay people to make pages of their own. So basically they are just getting ad money like if they open a free page of their own. Also, unlike wiki there will not be a place to contest the information being put forth as true. There will also not be a chance for others to contribute to one article giving it multi-dimensional scope. Plus the ads are an eyesore and will only bring distaste from the website. It is like buying knowledge again but indirectly.

Wikipedia is perfectly good site, with perfectly good model without ads. They are also making money through generous contributions of people who appreciate their pure approach. Also wikipedia is already well established and available in many languages giving it a mass appeal.

This is a foolish business program in my opinion and Goog will not succeed in usurping Wikipedia. But it might make Wikipedia to become more pro-active and do some creative work to their site.

Originally posted by IAF101
I do not think this will be a success like Wikipedia because this lacks honesty and sincerity. It is not a pure form of knowledge like wikipedia.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... yyyeeeeaaaaaahhhh.....


I find this actually a bit boring. Putting together a section of your website to catalog paid original material? A "Premium" section, if I may be so bold. That's so yesterday. I mean who hasn't done that already?

It is worth pointing out that not only does wikipedia return in the first few hits for a lot of keywords, but ATS does as well...

I am also amused by a speculation that some of Google's original content will not be written by humans. They haven't been archiving the worlds libraries and letting their pet robots read them for no reason. And if you legally own the author, there's noone to split the revenue with.