Is Google's gamble Wikipedia's nightmare?

Is it an ad platform worth watching?
For marketers who have hungrily eyed Wikipedia's gaudy traffic, fantasizing about using the reference site as a weapon in the war for reach, Knol could be a step in the right direction. But Knol won't be a cure for what ails marketers in the reference space, according to SEO consultant and author Aaron Wall, who says the space will be like a lot of other platforms that support contextual advertising.

For Wall, that means relatively subdued ads on the right side of the page.

"This doesn't seem like the kind of space that will get great clickthrough rates," Wall predicts. "But if Google wants to push it, the scale alone could be something to watch."

According to Barrett of Park Associates, Google may not be able to push Knol to the heights Wikipedia has seen. While the search giant's ever-changing algorithm could begin to favor Knol articles over Wikipedia entries, the real question will come down to community response.

"Nine out of 10 people will probably just see ads on something like Knol and ignore them," Barrett says. "The problem is that you rely on people to volunteer their time, energy and expertise to create the pages, and if you alienate them, then all of a sudden your platform stops growing. If that happens, it really doesn't matter how good a job you do at monetizing the space."

For Barrett, that means Knol won't tempt Wikipedia to try its hand at selling ads because Wikipedia would have to know that its brand relies on volunteers. In other words, the reference space may become a viable -- and effective -- tool for advertisers, but the likelihood of the space leader switching to a for-profit, ad-supported model probably won't become a reality anytime soon.

According to Barrett, the reference space demands singular answers, not diverging opinions. And that means Wikipedia's head start and devoted community of volunteer editors should be enough to keep Knol at bay.

That sentiment was seconded by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales who chided the idea of Knol as a blog aggregator.

But that's not to say that Knol -- if it succeeds -- won't offer something beneficial to marketers looking to cut off a slice of the reference space that has thus far remained largely out of their reach.

"If there's a critical mass, it's hard to ignore the audience," explains Benjamin Reid, VP of sales engineering at Operative. "The challenge for Google is that display has a higher bar, and the credibility of the content is going to matter. Advertisers are going to take a more narrow view of unedited content. While that space is far from valueless, it is a lot more risky and advertisers will have to weigh that."

<< Previous page | Next page >>

 

Comments

Andrew Stergiou
Andrew Stergiou January 28, 2008 at 4:13 PM


imediaconnection.com 1/28/2008 3:26:30 PM

Wikipedia versus Google Inc. by Andrew Stergiou

Creative copyright 2008 Attribution no modification or commericial use allowed otherwise all rights reserved.

In response to Published: January 25, 2008
Is Google's gamble Wikipedia's nightmare? By imediaconnection.com columnist Michael Estrin, http://www.imediaconnection.com:80/content/18141.asp

I am highly critical of wikis and Wikipedia in particular; as I don't first of all feel that the software was designed for the purposes a more limited number of less diverse users that it is being used now in the instance of Wikipedia:

Namely for use by thousands if not tens of thousands of users worldwide many of which are anonymous who strive to maintain what I feel a delusionary utopia.

As a Not-for-profit Executive Director:

The problem of Google Inc. versus Wikipedia, raises another even more significant problem of great importance, which points out the antithetical nature of many/most if not all corporations exist in the community:

Where corporations exist to use, abuse, and exploit community for their own benefit; and, use community in what threatens society as a whole; in addition to community stability. In corporate greed corrupting the world with duplicitous double speak fashioned by propagandist publicists who work for them; and,

Whereas multinational monopoly corporations disempowers and unempowers community involvement in what Ronald Reagan affirmatively referred to as an asset in America's long tradition of volunteerism.

The tactical issues of weither or not as Mr. Michael Estrin says

"Knol [as] a competitor to Wikipedia,” is or is "not the same thing. Unlike Wikipedia, Knol won't be anonymous. Instead, authors will be linked to their articles”, or that "Google hopes will help promote better accuracy and in turn help attract wary advertisers into a space dominated by questionable content.”, or "will eventually allow authors to enable ads and share in the revenue”; and, "Users will be able to submit, comment on and -- to some extent -- edit Knol articles” is immaterial .
.
What is significant (in what is nothing more that another cheap flimsy corporate effort to corrupt society as if "Satan himself”, is as materially as Mr. Michael Estrin points out that Google's actions are "a serious departure from the community-driven experience at Wikipedia.”.

To be admonished, sanctioned, and prohibited, though that is not to be perhaps expected since the Neo-Conservative Republican appointed FCC Chairman and his lackeys on one hand have used the internet's diversity as its excuse to loosen controls on monopolization in the consolidation of newspapers, radio, and TV, what are already very competitive markets to the dismay of all those who would appreciate Free enterprise but find none in what is government's obscene sweet heart relationships with monopolistic multinational corporations.

Karen Christensen
Karen Christensen January 25, 2008 at 9:48 AM

It seems that a recent European report on the social and economic dangers posed by Google initiatives, and the possibility of collusion, hasn't reached U.S. observers, and as the report specifically discusses Google and Wikipedia, iMedia readers might want to take a look: http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/dangers_google.pdf

I wrote about this from an encyclopedia publisher's perspectives a few weeks ago, too: http://www.berkshirepublishing.com/blog/?p=888. I've written often about the transformations underway in reference publishing and find the various start-ups similar to Wikipedia both encouraging and useful--because they help me understand the value of our encyclopedias, and also see ways we can adapt and enrich them with social media. Happy to talk about this, too!

Karen CHRISTENSEN ???
CEO, Berkshire Publishing Group ???????
??+1 413 528 0206 | Skype: karen_christensen