• U.S. Magazines in Canadian price game | TheStar.com
  Quote - Some magazines have quietly removed the U.S. dollar price from their covers, leaving only the Canadian one.
  (tags: magazines)

I guess it’s inevitable: whenever Google announces anything — and I mean anything — the response from the blogosphere — and seeping out into the real-world coverage — is that it’s designed to “kill” something. And so it has been during the past 24 hours since Google announced it’s working on a service where people can share “units of knowledge” called “knols.” (I’m going to call the service “Knol” from here on out in this post, but I’m not sure if that’s like calling a blog-post a blog — and if you’re a blogger, you know how irksome that can be. So, the service may be called something and a post on it may be called “a knol” but for this post, at least, I’m calling the whole thing Knol.) Since Knol sorta sounds like what Wikipedia does — allow people to share knowledge — yesterday’s announcement has been greeted with a chorus of bloggers singing, “Ding-Dong, Wikipedia is Dead.” (Later: And now by the ‘msm’ - WSJ and NYT.) Even my friend Steve Rubel, who’s almost always right about things like this (translation: I almost always agree with him) has jumped on the “Wikipedia is dead” meme-wagon and gives several reasons why.

But let’s all get real: Wikipedia won’t be killed by Google. At least not by Knol. Here are several reasons why:

1. Google’s resources and dominance may be massive, but Google hasn’t reached death star status: Can someone remind me what, other than all the early search engines, Google has actually killed online that had anywhere near the brand and market position of something as dominant globally as Wikipedia. I mean, other than Altavista that had a fairly dominant online brand, what has Google head-to-head “killed” as in introduced a clone service that then killed dead — as in put out of business — the service that it was supposed to kill? Did Google kill YouTube with its video-hosting product (Google even had a headstart)? (Google did buy YouTube, but if that’s killing, then please, shoot me.) Has Picasa killed Flickr yet? Has Google Docs killed Microsoft yet? Did Google’s Blogger.com kill WordPress or MovableType? (Again, Blogger had a headstart on WordPress.) Did Google crush Yahoo! Answers with its competitive offering? And Dodgeball — they’re really kicking folks’ ass, aren’t they? I can go on, but you get the idea. Something growing as exponentially as the web does not always support the zero-sum games necessary to allow even those with massive resources to kill others who have big headstarts, marketshare dominance — and who have excessively loyal cult followings.

2. Google may have more resources than anyone else, but it doesn’t have enough resources to fight endless multi-front wars: Sorry to use a war metaphor, but there’s no power on earth that can fight with effectiveness if it spreads its front lines too thinly. It’s not only about resources, it’s about the required focus of a few folks who must actually steer the aircraft carrier (gee, I’m even mixing war metaphors). Sure, it may appear as if Google has endless resources, but in the past few months, they’ve launched products and initiatives that have been described by bloggers as killers of the iPhone, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., etc. So they’re not just out to kill Wikipedia, they’re also engaged in skirmishes with Apple (who has $15 billion in cash) and Microsoft (I’m just going to stop here, you get the picture.)

3. Google may have an army of PhDs, but Wikipedia has a militia of Ph.D candidates: I get to make this observation because I’ve actually attended the Wikipedia cult-fest event called Wikimania where all the magic elves who make Wikipedia work congregate each year. By and large, they are crazy-smart graduate students and they don’t need no stinking Google employee perks to get fired up about defending their turf. So sure, Google may have more money than Wikipedia, but Wikipedia’s global army do one thing and one thing well. And if Google invades their turf, they will fight on the beaches. They will fight on the landing grounds. They will fight in the fields, and in the streets and in the hills. And they will never surrender — oh, wait, I got carried away there. I’ll stop with the war metaphors.

4. Knol is not an encyclopedia — or a wiki — or even kinda like a wiki, so how’s it going to kill something it’s not like? Perhaps it’s because I spend a big chunk of time head-down in a project that runs on Mediawiki (the same platform as Wikipedia), I’ve come to realize an important ingredient in the secret sauce in Wikipedia is elaborate and ever-changing taxonomy of internal links and constantly (and creatively) categorization that connect information found everywhere on the site. From its description on the Google announcement, Knol’s concept seems more like Blogger.com than Wikipedia. I know that might sound shocking to some, but here’s what I mean: It’s a personal webpage creation/publishing platform (a content management system) for one individual to post their knowledge on a topic (something I think is wonderful, by the way). Some people do that all day on a blog, but instead of creating blog pages (posts), if I use Knol to share such knowledge, I can use a content management system that utilizes metaphors and page displays that present articles on different topics about which I’m an expert. Again, that’s not what Wikipedia — or any wiki modeled on it — does. On a wiki, collaboration is exhibited in group-editing and aggressive and collaborative linking and categorization. With Knol, “collaboration” comes from comments and links and reputation management tools. So, unless there is something I’m completely missing after reading the Google explanation of it, one day, when you look up “Insomnia,” you’ll find dozens of experts giving their own slant on the issue. The A-List Insomnia experts will get top ranked. Or, perhaps the people who write the most Knols will become like the Amazon.com reviewers who become “the top” reviewers because they write thousands of reviews.

5. Wikipedia’s business model crushes even Google’s: I’m talking on the operating side, not the revenue side. With spending zero (marketing*) dollars, Wikipedia has one of the most recognized and favored brands in the world. Sure, Google is #1, but how many T-Shirts have they blown through in getting there? (In reality, while Wikipedia’s branding ROI is probably the most staggering in history, Google’s is in the same league — unlike Apple and Coke and others who spend hundreds of millions each year to gain the same level of global awareness.)

6. Knol may finally wake up the hippie fretards who keep Wikipedia from rolling in cash like the Mozilla Foundation: Oops, sorry. I was channeling Fake Steve. I have a hunch that if the true-believes who are the behind-the-scene magic elves who power Wikipedia become convinced that Google is out to crush them, they will suddenly find revenue religion and allow an alliance with Google, Microsoft or Yahoo! that will (think Mozilla’s Firefox and Google) make it rain millions into the Wikipedia Foundation’s coffers.

Summary:

Let’s face it: Google is always going to be labeled -killer no matter what they do. And despite what I’ve observed in this post, I’m not here to bury Google, but to praise it: I hope Knol is a huge success and millions of people share their knowledge using it. I’m all for spreading knowledge anyway we can. My only point here is to argue that Wikipedia is not going to be killed — by Knol, at least.

Hey, but if it does, please feel free to drop by my Orkut page and tell me about it.

Sidenote: How long will it take Knoll’s lawyers to jump onto this?

*I added this clarification word after the original post. See comments below.

What is a word for when you’re not really an optimist, but you’re skeptical of pessimists? And, no, it’s not realist.

I’ve observed before on this blog that for very important human-evolutionary reasons (i.e., the need to fear saber-tooth tigers), we’re all wired to anticipate danger lurking around every corner. Don’t get me wrong: Bad stuff does happen and there is ample reason to fear and prepare for the worst, but I’m often amazed by how, when it comes to the economy or social issues or national security or whatever, people find it so easy to believe the glass is not only half full, it’s just about empty and what water is there is filled with toxins placed by chemical companies or communists or terrorists.

Let me say this again: I do believe bad stuff happens and there are many things we should really fear, but I don’t believe boogey men are everywhere.

Here’s what I mean: A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times reported a new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen. And today, the New York Times reports the U.S. economy may not be heading into a recession. Whenever I see stories like these, I know there will be an avalanche of spin “proving” they’re wrong: Some people need for Iran to be portrayed as a grave threat to the U.S. and some people need for us to believe the U.S. economy is heading off a cliff.

Again, I’m not suggesting those on the right or left aren’t justified in their advocacy of their fears and beliefs. I absolutely understand why people can view the glass as empty — no matter where they sit along the political spectrum. However, I came to the conclusion long ago that things are rarely as bad as those who shout the loudest want us to believe (in order, I assume, to push forward their agendas).

I think there needs to be a word for someone like me. (And no, that’s not an invitation for zippy one-liners.) I’m not pleased with where many things are today — and where we’re heading. So, I’m not an optimist. However, I’m skeptical of pessimists, no matter what fear they’re peddling. I’m sure many would like to say that’s being a “realist,” but, again, I have friends who are both right- and left- leaning who are very much realists and justifiable when they articulate their points of view. So, I don’t want to suggest that I’m more “real” than they.

Frankly, I’m a bit skeptical of reality, as well.