Wikipedia is the most inspirational revolutionary system to emerge because of the internet. Google's competitive gesture, attempting to equate Wikipedia's service with a capitalist money-grub scheme, not only seems socially sacrilegious, but is destructive and bombastic. i hope this goes nowhere

Marisa, Brooklyn,

Based on the information in the article, it appears that Google truth stems from the number of advertising $$$, while Wikipedia truth stems from reasoned arguments.

Frank, San Diego, California,

Why does Google think it's going to be better? On one hand we have Wikipedia that has been slated because corporations have deleted negative vibes about themselves. On the flip side, we now have Google - where it's likely corproations will say whatever they want because success will be driven by adverts ... there is no escape!

Also, whilst I believe in their logic regarding anonymous versus not, can we assume that Google will be verifying user identities? So I can get a google account - big deal - it's going to mean nothing - if they can or cannot prove I am who I say I am (or not)!

Richard, New York, USA

Well, it's not really a new idea Google has come up with. Non-anonymous writing, peer rating fostering competition between writers, revenue sharing ... I have already seen that at helium.com. And it actually seems to work pretty well.

I just have to wonder if I can trust Google not to favor 'knols' in front of any other web article when I search on Google in the future. With all the secrecy about how they rank search results, how do I know that a 'knol' showing up in the top of my search results really is the best match to my search?

Kalvitz, NYC, USA

Because of Wikipedia's neutral style, it always containts malicious informations

shingo, Beijing, China

"which has led it to being blocked in states such as China."

This is not true. We can access Wikipedia in China.

You don't know what's happening in China.

Erik, Shanghai, China

dontcha just love free enterprise and competition? it will make both services better.

Eddie, Wolfforth, TX

The way Wikipedia should work is that anyone with data to add to an article, should be able to add it. Articles can get lengthy and varying styles, but that is okay.

That is not how it works. Editors don't want their precious work changed, period. Although this is not in line with the Wikipedia utopia, that is how it works in practice.

So instead of adding more and more data, Wikipedia editors have run amuck and discourage assimilation of any more data or changes.

If I ran the circus at Wikipedia, I would test each editor with changes, and see how they react. If they don't accept new data in the spirit of Wikipedia's utopia, give them something else to do. Right now the newbie's are getting crushed.

So this will be an easy win for Google. Google pits one author against another, something that everyone understands. Wikipedia depends on the goodness of everyone to play fair in utopia, that history has shown never works.

William Wallace, Apex, North Carolina

Google is evil. There is no other way to put it. They are intrusive, and getting more so each day. They know too much about what your web surfing habits are, what your e-mail says, etc. Kinda scary don't you think? I agree with the poster who stated "google = 1984."

clh, Greater Seattle, Wa

please...let wiki have it. why does google always have to try to be bigger and better, besides the $ concept. google.s a joke

tk, tk,

google = 1984 (Mr Orwell)

gerard pawling, simsbury, connecticut

I will be keen to see what will be defined as expert knowledge. It is purely a subjective matter that has different meanings at various academic levels and cultures.

I look forward to this additional library to share and gain knowledge.

Fernando Rose, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK

Sounds exciting! Competition (which Wiki seems to lack) is a good thing. I, too, submitted some revisions to theater articles (Ph.D) only to find my carefully framed and edited submissions replaced by older, less accurate text. Not sour grapes here so much as commitment to accuracy and balanced presentation of evidence. With competition, readers may look at differing points of view, compare, make judgments. As Wimsey might say in his delightfully playful prose, "ain't that what the educated should do?"

Herbert Smith, Las Cruces, NM

Who will be lurking on the grassy knoll?

river, Cape Town,

I would like to think an expert search process exists such that the searcher begins a process whereby a reverse algorithm permits a "best practice" search mask permitting the searcher to insert specific unique targets and receiving results that are the best possible. "Knol" is not this, but I believe such an "8 miles high" cloud project is desirable. If this exists only at the highest echelons, I will be glad. Yet, for those desiring reliable information Google has seemingly gamed itself into SEO wonderland and contorting the system pretty much inside out. I guess the main thing is that it is still good enough that most people think they have been getting the real thing. Altavista now has as much chance of delivering on the first page as does The King.

marc arenstein, maalot, israel

I am delighted with the prospect of knol. I became extremely frustrated with Wikipedia when I ran up against the bias of their moderators. In my own area of specialization (242 semester hours), Wiki's employees would delete my comments not because they were factually wrong, but because they were socially wrong. (It was about the evangelical celebration of certain Jewish festivals such as Hanukkah and Purim.) The religious moderator said that "Messianic" evangelicals shouldn't be celebrating the holidays of other religions, and therefore the section had no legitimacy.

My response is that an encyclopedia is about what IS, not about what someone thinks SHOULD BE. I lost the debate. This kind of thing happened repeatedly and entire sections of the entries were dropped. After a while I realized that Wiki wants a world in which people like me and my views don't exist. I seldom use it anymore.

Chad Woodburn, St. Cloud, FL

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this. So often, "experts" represent Corporate America (drug companies, etc.). There is a real value, I believe, to the constant ebb and flow of Wickipedia. After all, what is truth?

Susan Klopfer, Mount Pleasant, IA

Jimmy Wales is full of it when he says, “They are not going to allow collaboration and aren’t going to go for Wikipedia’s neutral style.”

There are many Wikipedia entries that are so biased and lacking factual foundation, yet it is impossible to correct the errors because the mods prefer their own bias even presented with absolute facts they are wrong. Wikipedia collaboration is a joke.

Jim, Kansas,

I think knol is a good idea. I was very put off of Wikipedia a couple of years ago when I made corrections and additions to a relatively short, simple article on a specialized subject. I put quite a lot of time into the effort. A day after I posted it, it reverted to the old version, and my work was lost. I have never looked at Wikipedia again, for any reason, as based on my experience I think it must lack a great deal of available knowledge and thus I am suspicious of its value.

Jeanne, Paris, France

Wikipedia is a joke. Despite my legnthy career, they would not let me post an article concerning my candidacy and removed it numerous times. I should file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission and make WIkipedia file a campaign finance report, since they are obviously in support of my opponent and by refusing me access, are making an in-kind contribution to my opponent's campaign. SHAME on Wikipedia.

Go Google!

RINOhunter, Washington, DC

First of all, for the most part, very intelligent and coherent remarks, both pro and con. To Zon, Palo Alto , CA--Wiki isn't creating a search engine, one of the founders is, and from what I remember reading, it's a reaction to the ad-based business model of Google, not an emulation of it. And to Martin, Macon, France, you reference Microsoft, but as far as I know (and I could be wrong) Microsoft has no major financial interest in either Google or Wiki.

Matt Sweeney, Staten Island, NY

There will be as many articles on a given topic as there are writers, not one, which allows anyone to have a voice on a subject in KNOL.

How a particular view gains authority is based, according to details, on peer reviews, ratings, and google's algorithms (pagerank).

So in essence, this is like Blogger, but with wikipedia easiness of tools and social networking features.

This is going to bring all kinds of new, beneficial information to the surface, which is a good thing.

Ukko, Helsinki, Finland

I wonder who will be asked to write the article on the Tiananmen Square "incident" of 4th June 1989?

AndyB, Manchester, England

If I could suggest a better name than KNOL, then what about KNIP which would be an acronym for 'Knowledge Is Power.'

Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales

I love that Google will try to match up, but Wiki has them beat with the pure power of peer reviewed and controlled format that naturally produces excellance without annoying distractions that will come along with Google. I'm all for competition and will gladly see Google fall on this one and make my favorite software look that much better.

Jeffery , Phoenix, Arizona

Wikipedia is a sad and pathetic joke. If you have first-hand knowledge on a subject, you can't submit that information because of Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" rules. However, if you are a 19 year-old college junior with zero life experience and nothing but heresay and innuendo to guide you, you too can be a moderator and decide what are facts are true and what is not. Good luck to Google. Wikipedia needs a good kick in the pants.

Punkey Doodles, Los Angeles, USA

The problem with Wikipedia is when Moderators/Admins of Wikipedia don't like your facts it is too bad for facts, so all Wikipedia political articles are biased crap. If Google can do something about it then I am all for knol.

Robert Dzikowski, Warsaw,

Google has the stated aim of "don't be evil". They don't need to supplant Wikipedia. If they are not evil, then the Google people should make a some giga-dollar contributions to Wikipedia so they can have dedicated professionals help with the proofing. And/or collaborate and patronize with Encyclopedia Britannica, with the condition that Brittannica make their stuff public.
And that is what I think.

Hugh, Niagara Falls, Canada

Based on the founders' left leaning perspectives, Knol will be another left-of-center medium, thus making the mainstream media only larger...

MIKE, ARCADIA, CA

Why is Wikipedia coming up with its own search engine? It also has commercial or business motives even though it is depending on donors from different groups. I think it is a good idea for google to go ahead with Knol even if the articles are not going to be balanced. Several scholars or authors can present their views on a subject. Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Dictionary are not developing their own search engines. Wikipedia which allows collaboration has very limited information on a lot of subjects. We need both. Consumers are free to use Wikipedia search engine (when it is released) or Google to do their search.

Zon, Palo Alto , CA

Wikipedia is now tagging most articles as substandard, because of lack of citations, sources, formatting, writing style, ... you name it. When I pointed out creating new work and locating data was the hard part, an editor said no, it was the checking and review and verification, and everything but.

Criticizing articles is a lot easier than actually fixing or making them better. And my experience is that even innocuous changes are stricken when the article author doesn't want their work touched.

I am subject matter expert in one area, free easy sheet music, and when I added links to the actual FREE music, most authors throught it was okay, and one had a huge problem and threatened to ban me and reversed changes. When I said authors have to accept changes, the whole utopian ideal of Wikipedia, he went ballistic.

Whatever utopia Wikipedia started out as, it no longer is. So WELCOME KNOLS, here I come.

William Wallace, Apex, North Carolina

Wikipedia is faulted for allowing uncontrolled editing of it's contents. But it also has 2 remedies for that: 1) the history of different versions or edits can be easily viewed, and 2) there is a discussion page for each entry.

It should also be mentioned that many topics which are important to people (basic facts about science, technology, drugs, etc) are not contentious and not affected (but instead is enhanced) by Wikipedia's operating model of anonymous editorship.

When it comes to much of what Google's business model is based on (advertising), I think the number of people that use ad blockers, host files, etc, is highly underestimated.

Joe Blow, Toronto, Canada

I'll stick with the non ad Wiki thanks. Just another case of a giant trying to profit off a good simple free thing that already exists.

Steve, Windham,

The knol on the 'Holocaust' or on 'Falung Gong' will be worth seeing. Will knols be censored in each country individually, or will they be banned everywhere if one single country objects? What about contradictory laws? For example, in Turkey it is illegal to discuss the killing of Armenians in WW1 in terms of genocide, whereas in France it is illegal not to! What will Google do about that one? Answer probably is: not have any knols at all on controversial topics... just ones that advertisers will pay for... And the advertisers will no doubt be censored as well - for example, if a Saudi organization wants to pay big money for an advertisement on a knol which is pointing out how kind the Germans really were to the Jews, or what a gentle man Mohammed was, or discussing the CIA 'waterboarding' torture, no doubt that will be ruled out of court.

Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, UK

All this means is that when we do a Knol search for China we will now be provided with all the in depth information about hotels in China, and not a dam bit of useful information we were looking for. Just like Google search.

Joe Roberts, nashville, Tn

Wikipedia is less likely to be co-opted than Google because it relies on donors to stay viable. Because most of the donors are unlikely to come from one party dictatorship countries than from those where democracy is a cultural value, I trust it more Google has already shown it can be bought by it's desire to stay on the good side of dictatorships when loss of advertising revenue is threatened. That's why they caved into pressure from the government of China instead of valuing free speech more than money.

P Smith, kelowna, canada

Hasn't microsoft got the message! It is not trusted. Where there is a choice most of us would rather use anything other than a Microsoft product trying to steamroller any competition out of the way

Martin, Macon, France

Do we really want Google to control so much? Do they have to take over everything that falls under their gaze?

John, Northampton,

I am for anything that will reinforce Wikipedia on its pedestal...
and this surely will. Wikipedia's inaccuracies are wildly exaggerated by those with an axe to grind. When people taste the partisan commercial flavour of the Google knols they will long for Wikipedia's impartiality.

Rosemary Roberts, Germany,

I'm getting rather concerned by Google.

I don't dispute the quality of their product, just that they seem to want to be everywhere. I certainly wouldn't have a Gmail account, and manage to live without a Google toolbar.

Even though I am as pure as the driven snow I would feel uncomfortable knowing that they kept information regarding my private correspondence, friends, interests and desires.

It's bad enough Governments wanting to know everything about you let alone a bunch of even less accountable guys in the USA.

Nick, St Ouen, France

It is always good to see more than one player in the game. Ii will provide more options to the researchers as well as offer more insight into the subject matter at hand. Point at hand is the concept that has plagued the education system: "He can't be a professor because he doesn't smoke the same ciigarettes as me." All too often by the time the accepted establishment has filtered the information through it's system it comes out tainted with the same message.

"Knol" may allow a more diverse view and insight into current affair topics and thought. There are always different sides to an issue and we the people should be allowed to see all aspects and opinions. I am sure there will be some abuses however I think the opportunity for success will outweigh the abuses and we should give this new forum and information source an opportunity to succeed. If it prooves to be a success we all win.

We should be thankful that Google has the resources, desire, ability and the drive to take on

Lau Pan, Shanghai, China

Google's track record on censorship is scary, so do not expect that they will select "knols" who have a real "knol" of human rights attrocities or poisoned food in China and the genocide Beijing spreads across the world. Don't expect a knol on Chinese 'Organ Harvesting', for example. Same with other countries where the buck could buy their silence, or on political issues which differ with those of Google's.

Because Google will 'select' such "experts", the process is flawed to start. Will they allow more than one opinion on the big ideas which shape our world? Better they would ask independent groups to select a wide range of experts on each topic.

Google chose censorship in China, they just can't be trusted for editorial freedom issues.

R.R., Washington, DC, USA

I am for anything that will dump Wickipedia off its pedestal . . .

Russell Armor, Denver, CO

Roland,
Not only American geeks, but also Indian ones, too. And not AmerIndians -- the real ones - from India. There's too much that is heavily biased and fluff without proper even a semblance of scholarship. Everyone's (fourth-rate) opinion is equally valid!!!!!

Anil Siqueira, Mumbai, India

One suspects that if you pick a random topic, then the greatest living authority no that topic will either find the prospect of being paid through advertising revenue somewhat offensive, or be in an academic or commercial position whose terms of employment prevent him from entering into such an agreement.

And then, to paraphrase The Rolling Stones: "He can't be a professor because he doesn't smoke the same ciigarettes as me." Will my opinion of the article (I REFUSE to abuse my mother tongue by calling it a "knol") be coloured by my opinion of the adverts surrounding it? (Well, in my particular case the answer is no because I use very effective ad-blocking software.)

15 years ago, USENET newsgroups found that authoritative communicators in different subjects rose, like any cream, to the top quite naturally. I suspect all of the current problems – in both camps – stem from the desire to "monetise" these people.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

THANK U GOOGLE! LOVE U FOR KNOLS! What I don't understand is why is Google or anyone else entertaining this crappy Wikipedia website. The site is literally infested with demented administrators unjustly blocking and banning everyone, reverting legitimate edits of editors when they get their feelings hurt, etc. Countless number of horrible admins (Jpgordon, Isotope23, Robert Ullmann, Spebi, Ryulong, Kwsn) Because of the sites horrible administrators like the ones just listed, it is destined to fail. They have had a several controversies regarding admins and their ridiculous blocking and banning having to do with Durova. Whats worse is their complaint system are handled by the admins as well and issues are impssoble to get resolved. They're not acting on their many problems. NOW KNOLS, You will get credit for your work instead of being repayed with the social chaos and unjust banning that goes on at pedia, you will get to create your own articles without someone vandalizing it LOVE IT!!

Adam, Waukeshau, North

Great news. And it will save taxpayers a fortune. All the government lackies who are paid to upgrade any Wikipedia reference to government ministers or party image will be out of jobs.

jj, Cambs, UK

Isn't this what Microsoft does?

Find a good idea developed by independents, then steal it, put the originator out of business, then charge for what was free?

Looks like that Google "Helping Hand" is becoming "Big Brother".

Olden Atwoody, Twickenham, UK

I'm not sure a system where Richard Dawkins can write the authorative article on God is working better than Wikipedia. But who knows, the so called neutral articles of Wikipedia aren't working either.

Berend de Boer, Auckland, New Zealand

Google's interest in competing with Wikipedia is a breath of fresh air to contributors whose work gets seriously interferred with by opinionated, self appointed half wits among Wikipedians with vested interests. I was particularly drawn to the Google concept by the apparently greater freedom and accountability by authors of their articles, a feature absent with Wikipedia and which undermines the authority of articles submitted to Wikipedia. Infuriating features of Wikipedia practices are:

1.The ease with which an article can be torpedoed by half wits.
2. Failure by Wikipedia to recognise the validity of a topic that only the writer has publisherd and worked on in any depth, and by its archaic rules that disallow referring to one's own work which provides detailed theory to be followed up.
3.The sheer bureacracy involved in submitting an article for it to be retained by the system.

I wish Google every success in their venture. Wikipedians might learn something from Google

Maxadolf, Epsom, UK

One of the principal problems with Wikipedia is its inner panel of would-be editors, mostly I suspect, young American geeks who have little knowledge of life or the world and who decide what shall or shall not be included. Articles frequently have the note "citation needed" as if every entry has to have a series of foot notes. Conversely, biographical details appear about persons who are enjoying temporary celebrity and which any other encylopaedia would reject. Indeed, celebrity appears to be an important element - Paris Hilton (noted as an "American celebutante") a young person of ample means but of no discernable ability, has no less than 72 references. Glenda Jackson, infinitely more talented, has but one! If Wikipedia was a genuine encylopaedia, on the lines of Britannica, then it would have a more critical faculty as Google appears to desire. SInce Google is now the hallmark for search engines, with luck its new endeavour will succeed in the same way as the original.

Roland Foote, Los Angeles, United States

This sounds rather like the Wikipedia offshoot Wikisource. Unless they exercise editorial control, they will attract a lot of cranks, and will have more credibility problems than Wikipedia. If writers are placed under editorial control, they will expect to be paid. Google could afford to pay, but a service with paid writers, and advertisers to please, would have difficulty maintaining independence.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Given that all knowledge is political, and Google will change their tune for whoever is paying the tab, I simply can’t want for the “Human Rights” entry. Nor that of the Magna Charta, French Revolution, or Emancipation Proclamation. It should all be most interesting. Oh, and lets not forget, "sophistry" while we're at it.

James Sibal, Kew Gardens, , NYC, USA

I wonder how long it will be before the Google bubble bursts?

Simon, Oxon,