Don't we love it when Google takes over a product, or competes against an 'inferior' product and makes it better? 
Yes - Of course we do. We applaud, embrace and adopt the new technology.
But this is not the same way I reacted when I heard the news that Google is starting to take on Wikipedia. I was sort of saddened, and confused. I didn't really know what this meant. Wikipedia is an effort to create an online encyclopaedia - knowledge sharing - a way to get useful, pertinent information quickly. Isn't that exactly Google philosophy as well? Then why in the world does Google want to compete with it? Are they feeling insecure that a lot of searches reveal a relevant link to a Wikipedia article – within the top 10 results?
In my opinion, since Wikipedia doesn’t have advertising, but it one of the most frequently used sites on the web, Google has to find a way of capitalizing on that opportunity. Could you imagine every wiki article tagged with Google Ads? That’s what the new Knol – or ‘unit of knowledge’ is going to become once it launches. It will allow the author of the page to enable ads and get a ‘substantial’ share of the revenue generated from those ads. So if you are able to steak the most popular searches - becoming the author to those articles, you could make a ton of cash!
Honestly, I like Wikipedia for what it is, community based encyclopaedia. Knol is going to be authored by one person; and the only way to change the content (if incorrect or offensive) would be to comment and rate the article. Huh? Why? What happened to keeping everything open and accessible? Why tie one person to one article? Why not let everyone author it, what is so wrong with the Wikipeida model?
I’m going to stop complaining and just wait till they release to see what the deal is.
Just a thought – Wiki requires everything to be sited. Now with two competing ‘sources’, can you site one using the other? How is that going to work?
If you are curious, Google has a example of a Knol.