Google vs. Wikipedia...

Google has announced a collaborative encyclopedia that will feature experts writing on topics. Some FLOSS and Wikipedia supporters think this is a bad thing. I'm not sure why. Yes, Google wants to put ads on the pages (call Knols). And yes, maybe we should keep an eye out to make sure that knols aren't given precedence in organic search results. But seriously, do you really believe we can take all the wonderful wisdom of the world and store it in the servers of a non-profit organization that makes money from donations?

Capitalism and free markets have made everything more efficient, useful, and accessible in terms of the Internet. Why should Societal KM be any different? Google innovates because it has talent and money. Not all innovation needs money, but very few innovation projects succeed without it. Who's going to pay for Wikipedia as terabytes of data are added? What are the long-term consequences of people involved in FLOSS projects literally dying, losing interest, or, God Forbid, waking up one day and realizing that there is economic value in their efforts which they aren't getting paid for. I vote for Google. Because, you know, anyone who's motto is "Do no Evil" seems like a good candidate for something.

While the debate rages, however, I am interested to see what a knol looks like. This site might be more like the About.com expert model than Wikipedia. No one seems to sense that connection.