Google knol vs Wikipedia

Well, another boring argument in favor of Wikipedia, you may guess. Right !

Since Google's announcement of its Knowledge project called Knol (strangely being interpreted as an unit of knowledge), I've been observing discussion regarding the motivation behind this project and whether it's going to be a Wikipedia killer in the near future. Most argument is in favor of Wikipedia and how it'd never be replaced.

Basically, knol articles are associated with authors, who supposedly know what they are writting about (well, don't Wikipedians all?). Readers then cast votes and comments on those articles. Many people can write articles of the same subjects, but only ones written by "experts" shall appear realiable !! Furthermore, to your suprise, there would be lines of ads appearing on the left or right side of each article as well.

Key differences between this and Wikipedia model is best highlighted here. The main point to take away is that a Knol does not represent "wisdom of the crowd", but a collection of Knols may probably do. It is also argued that Wikipedia would be benefit from the growth of Knol, because best information from Knol would find it way to a Wikipedia page somehow. Yes, content-wise, I agree that with Knol, Wikipedia will only get stronger. However, there is a subtle catch here. Search result. Now if I typed in a search in Google, which would come first ? My bet is on Knol, with the following reasons. One, G-men could easily tweak their PageRank algorithm so that their babies come top. Two, even if the G-men aren't involved, the nature of PageRank algorithm is also likely to boot Knols to the top, because they're linked from Google and probably cited from Wikipedia itself.

So, Google doesn't seem to be interested in providing a comprehensive encyclopedia online, but in pushing Wikipedia search results down the rank. The gain is that more people would click on Knol (ads equipped) articles first, hence generate more money for Google.