free html hit counter Jimmy Wales Responds | John Battelle's Search Blog

Jimmy Wales Responds

By - December 15, 2007

I pinged Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, about Google’s competitive move this past week. I asked him his initial thoughts:

Sounds more like Yahoo Answers than Wikipedia to me. It is not a collaborative tool, it is a competitive tool.

“We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.”

Very different from a wiki, and not likely to generate much of quality.

Then I asked if he was surprised that Google did it. “I am surprised it took them so long. :)” was his response.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

12 thoughts on “Jimmy Wales Responds

  1. Zozo says:

    dude why are you a google hater? seriously.. whatever they do, you’re giving some negative criticism about it.

  2. Andrew Taylor says:

    The man whose website is an encyclopedia that can be edited by any idiot or liar says that knol is “not likely to generate much of quality”? I mean, fair play to Wikipedia it is mostly very good, but it strikes me as more than a little arrogant to dismiss knol, as if his particular system for user-generated content is the only one that might work.

  3. SorenG says:

    @zozo Asking a site their views on a new competing site is Google hating? In this logic, asking readers their views on a blog post would be “author hating.” I don’t get it.

    The real story here, though, is that Google seems to claim it will give extra help to make sure posts on knols show up high in search results. If so, they have now stepped over quite a serious line. How much will users care and respond is the big question. I would greatly enjoy clarification on just what they mean.

  4. Kevin Gamble says:

    >Google seems to claim it will give extra help to make sure posts on knols show up high in search results.

    And where did they say that? Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia), how is Google providing preferential treatment?

    Well written content does well in SEO. Period. It sure sounds to me like Google is treating all content the same– that the higher quality content will rise to the top.

  5. Jean-S├ębastien Girard says:

    “Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia)”

    Wikipedia never did any sort of SEO by itself. It’s certain$ly not organized enough for that.

  6. kevin gamble says:

    Are you kidding? SEO is completely in Wikipedia’s DNA. It starts with the titles, the first sentence, and every other aspect that writers have control over. You have a whole army of volunteers making sure the “formula” is followed.

  7. Anand says:

    I perfectly agree with what Jimmy Wales has to say. Knol looks more like Ezinearticles.com, the popular article submitter. How different is this? Wikipedia is an entirely different concept in itself, and the only place where they will compete is in the Google SERPS which Wikipedia has anyway been doing all these years with all the other webpages.

  8. Rob Phillips says:

    I think the key thing here is whether Google place emphasis on it, or whether they just let it “exist”.

  9. Jim Green says:

    I think the big difference here just that it’s google, god damn they’re just so sexy, their products, their smooth curves… uhh, anyway, google seems to be able to make their products just so much more popular than everybody elses. Are they better or does google just have such a great image?

  10. Estetik says:

    hi,
    I am Java Programmer working in a Software Company. We provide ERP solutions to various domestic and international clients. We are now looking for new open source and we think Open Laszlo is great tool for us.

  11. seo says:

    The real story here, though, is that Google seems to claim it will give extra help to make sure posts on knols show up high in search results. If so, they have now stepped over quite a serious line. How much will users care and respond is the big question. I would greatly enjoy clarification on just what they mean.

  12. City pics says:

    Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia)”

    Wikipedia never did any sort of SEO by itself. It’s certain$ly not organized enough for that.

    just laugh :S

    Are you kidding? SEO is completely in Wikipedia’s DNA. It starts with the titles, the first sentence, and every other aspect that writers have control over. You have a whole army of volunteers making sure the “formula” is followed.