The idea of web annotation has been around for a long time. In a nutshell, a web annotation is user contributed information that can be added, updated, or removed from an existing web resource (typically a web page) without modifying the original resource. Much the the way you might annotate a book or printed document using little yellow sticky notes, you might annotate a web site using web annotations.
Over the years, there have been many web annotation product/service offerings (e.g., see Web Annotation And Markup - Tools And Services: A Mini-Guide). Today, the newest incarnation was released by Google.
The latest Google Toolbar (for Firefox and Internet Explorer, Chrome in the works) includes a new feature called "Sidewiki" that lets you contribute information next to any webpage.
Google Sidewiki presents annotation entries as a browser sidebar, where you (and anyone else using Google Toolbar) can read and write entries along the side of the page.
This is really cool technology. I think the Google engineers, once again, have done a bang up job.
But... how carefully has Google vetted the idea? Is this going to be good for the Web? Is this going to be good for site owners? Is the net impact more good than evil?
I am a long time proponent of the semantic web, knowledge management, information enhancement and discovery. Almost a decade ago, I was chief architect on Starbase's Elmer project, focused on doing exactly this within corporate information assets. Five years ago, I blogged about the critical importance (I called it a "holy grail") of effective knowledge capture, persistence, enhancement, and transfer. From this perspective, Google's new Sidewiki is a very cool advancement.
But I have also spent much of the last five years working in the world of online content publishing, social media, search engine visibility, content discoverability, SEO, and so on. From this perspective, I'm not sure I like Google Sidewiki at all.
In the Web 2.0 world, content is king, but conversations are queen. Fresh, relevant, discoverable content is foundational for almost every modern online initiative. And building on this foundation, is the value created by cultivating relationships with people drawn to that content. Google Sidewiki has the potential to greatly interfere with an organization's ability to build online value in this way.
The first problem is that Google will begin to amass user generated content (UGC) in the form of annotation entries that would otherwise have accrued as assets to the site owner in the form of comments, forum entries, blog posts, and so on. Remember, content is king and Sidewiki provides a content siphon that moves content from an organization to Google.
Next, Google is injecting itself into the conversations and dialogs among the organization's online community. Not only does Google own these conversational assets, it controls how, when, and where these assets are presented. For example, Google states:
"In developing Sidewiki, we wanted to make sure that you'll see the most relevant entries first. We worked hard from the beginning to figure out which ones should appear on top and how to best order them. So instead of displaying the most recent entries first, we rank Sidewiki entries using an algorithm that promotes the most useful, high-quality entries."
Further, Google may decide to take annotations from one organization's web site and attach it to the web site of a completely different organization:
"Under the hood, we have even more technology that will take your entry about the current page and show it next to webpages that contain the same snippet of text."
In short, Google is moving to become the owner and arbiter of web conversations. This feels, to me, as though it is failing the "do no evil" test.
And there's another important point that should not be lost in all of this. Specifically, if you're not using the Google Toolbar, you can't participate in these Sidewiki conversations. So, the more successful Google becomes in siphoning UGC into Sidewiki (and away from an organization's domain), the more an organization's audiences will bifurcate into those that can see Sidewiki and those that can not. And, of course, the more pressure there will be on users to install the Google Toolbar. Again, this seems to be failing the "do no evil" test.
There is still one more important issue to think about here. Google Sidewiki will create a whole new industry for spammers. In the same way that comments, forums, and other UGC mechanisms provide spammers ways to publish their garbage on an organization's site, Sidewiki will also become a target for spammers. (And with Google's intent to present entries across multiple sites, it could be a very, very attractive target.) But unlike conventional UGC mechanisms that can be moderated by each organization, Sidewiki provides an organization with no moderation or opt in/out controls. So, let the spammer arms race begin.
I'm a big Google fan. But I think, in this case, they may have been overly excited about the (admittedly very cool) technology and overlooked some of its implications. | 
Contact
![Subscribe to the "Google Sidewiki: Do [No?] Evil" web feed.](images/subscribe-webfeed.jpg "Subscribe to the \"Google Sidewiki: Do [No?] Evil\" web feed."){kind=small}
