Knol
There's much ado about Knol, but I haven't noticed many Wikipedian voices. Well, I'll speak up, and I'm sort of a Wikipedian. Actually, less so recently, which is relevant. — The Target Audience — I know exactly who Knol will appeal to. People like me. Frustrated editors.
Context & Ripple Effects
Google's Knol announcement has generated significant industry buzz, per discussion circulating as of mid-December 2007, and the framing that has taken hold positions it as a rival to Wikipedia. What has been missing from that conversation, as this piece points out, is the Wikipedian perspective — and the author supplies one, speaking as a lapsed contributor who describes editing less often lately.
The analysis matters because it names the actual battleground: not features, but people. If Knol's audience is 'frustrated editors' — contributors worn down by Wikipedia's collaborative process — then the competition between Google and Wikipedia will be fought over individual contributors' loyalty rather than over readers alone.
First-order effects
- Frustrated Wikipedia editors — the author's own cohort — gain a credible alternative destination for their expertise, giving Google a recruiting pool of experienced contributors without having to build a community from scratch.
- Wikipedia faces its first serious challenge framed around contributor retention rather than content quality, since the piece argues the disaffected editor is exactly who Knol will attract.
Second-order effects
- Wikipedia's volunteer community will likely be forced to defend its editorial culture publicly, since the critique implicit here — that the process burns people out — strikes at the model itself rather than at any single policy dispute.
- Other user-generated knowledge projects must now decide whether attributed, single-author formats or open wiki consensus better retain expert contributors, splitting the reference-content world along that line.
Third-order effects
- If expert contributors migrate toward attributed formats, the long-term structure of online reference work could bifurcate into consensus-built wikis and individually signed pages, with platforms competing on governance style as much as on reach.
- A pattern of large platforms hosting expert-authored content would concentrate both traffic and moderation authority in fewer hands, raising questions about neutrality incentives that volunteer communities currently answer through their own processes.
The trend: Online reference knowledge is entering a contest over contributor loyalty, where the durability of Wikipedia's volunteer-consensus model will be tested against platform-run alternatives designed to court its dissatisfied editors.