Bad news for jason and mahalo! Google declares war on jimmy and wikipedia!
So Google makes an algo that puts wikipedia at the top of all the results. You search for 'hamburger', you get the encyclopedia definition of a hamburger. Riiiight... But questioning the the wisdom of this algorithmic choice is off the table.
So they say, "Whoa. Look at that site at the top of all our results. We made them that big with our traffic. We should have a site like that, and then we could be there, instead. But we'll do it right this time. Our way. And put our ads on it!"
Ask has those nice oneboxes. You search for britney, you get her AMG profile and a little picture from better days. But that's just the AMG dataset. You can implement about 100 of those custom datasets, and then smoke and noise start to come out of your feed integration team, and you can't take in any more feeds.
Google has Oneboxes. A lot of them are programmatic. sfo to lax, chicago weather, goog, things like that. But gosh, isn't wikipedia being in the top spot for all those searches just a kind of Onebox? An informational-article Onebox? Wikipedia only has 1.5M articles, that doesn't seem like a lot. Heck, jason pumped out 26,000 in a few months with a little team. What if this were properly scaled to the web?
Google could then scale its informational oneboxes. And keep them under its control. Not have them run by some kimono-wearing guy who wants to let the community decide how the content should be edited. A guy who won't take green US dollars for ads. What's he thinking? Better not trust him. ;-)
So what's the problem
Google is optimized for one result. Position #1, the I'm Feeling Lucky button. Oneboxes fit into this goal. The programmatic ones are command-line tools. 'weather 60201'.
But Oneboxes aren't webby. Even Mahalo, with its editor-created pages, seeks to link out to the breadth of information available about a topic. To be the best hub for that topic - not the destination. Wikipedia is a destination, but by virtue of the democratic inclusion process, mostly succeeds in distilling the web's voices into an objective resource.
There are many first-order problems with the Knol plan. Paul Montgomery zeroes in on some of the moderation issues nicely. But set aside the nightmare of trying to coax a usergen-content business to produce quality output. The question is, if this did succeed, would it contribute to building the ultimate web experience that we really want?