Is wikipedia getting competition?

Not one, but two interesting articles in the New York Times about Google starting or experimenting with an on-line encyclopedia written by experts writing what they know about and presented unDer the authors' bylines.

The first article, published December 14, 2007 and written by By Jeremy Kirk of IDG News Service\London Bureau, explains that Google is interested in entering the market. Google Develops Wikipedia Rival.

By JEREMY KIRK, IDG News Service\London Bureau, IDG

Google is developing an online publishing platform where people can write entries on subjects they know, an idea that's close to Wikipedia's user-contributed encyclopedia but with key differences.

The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said.

Google wants the knols to develop into a deep repository of knowledge, covering topics such as geography, history and entertainment.

Google's project will have to catch up with Wikipedia, which includes more than 7 million articles in 200 languages. Anonymous users constantly update Wikipedia entries in an ever-growing online encyclopedia that's edited by a network of vetted editors.

There are several key differences between Google's idea and Wikipedia. Google plans to use articles written by bylined authors, assuming that users will trust what they find there if they know the reputation of the author. Authors can write on any topic, and the same topic can be covered by different authors. (That should make for some interesting disagreements, though the intent will obviously be to focus on consensus.)

The editing tools and web hosting space will be provided by Google and the authors will be able to choose whether or not to include Google ads. (sounds to me a lot like blogger.) Authors will receive some of the ad revenue. Like Blogger, Others will not be allowed to edit the entries as is done in Wikipedia, but readers will be able to rank and review entries. The Google search engine will be guided by rankings.

A second NY Times article by Miguel Helft covering much the same information is found at Wikipedia Competitor Being Tested by Google. The second article is dated December 15, 2007. It includes some of the same information as Kirk's article did, but adds some information.

Google said that a main idea behind the project was to bring attention to authors who have expertise on a particular topic.

“Somehow the Web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors’ names highlighted,” Udi Manber, vice president for engineering at Google, wrote in an announcement of the test Thursday evening on a Google corporate blog. “We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of Web content.”[Snip]

"I think Google is looking at the growth of sites like Wikipedia, that aggregate knowledge, and feels it has to play in that space,” said Danny Sullivan, a search expert and editor of the Web site Search Engine Land.

Several other services have taken different approaches in their efforts to become repositories of knowledge on various topics. They include Yahoo Answers, Squidoo, Mahalo and About.com, which is owned by The New York Times Company.

As a dedicated user of both Blogger (by Google) and of Wikipedia, I like the sounds of this. I do use Wikipedia a lot. The articles usually provide a succinct overview of a given topic, particularly when it is a biography of someone in the news. This is especially important when looking for an explanation of something that is in the current news and is changing.

The drawback to Wikipedia is that it can be "gamed" by individuals who want to put their spin on the topics. That's always going to be a risk when looking at the first reports on a given situation, especially political. The Google "Knols" are unlikely to be the first entries available to explain the current news, but when they do appear, being bylined they will provide a "branded" reputation for reliability, and if they provide pay to the authors, they may get more writers than Wikipedia does.

This Google effort looks like a good option for both the readers and the authors, but I don't think it will replace Wikipedia in explaining the latest things in the news. It will either be a good supplement to Wikipedia, or an alternative. The process of bylining articles will give them more credibility, but the additional effort at research by a single author will almost certainly slow down the publication of articles. The group process of Wikipedia is likely to get the information published to the Internet faster. The two concepts are significantly different, and should lead to different usage, so I am glad to see Google try it.