If you look at top websites -- like Wikipedia and craigslist -- a common theme is user participation. It certainly can be a powerful thing.

Well, this is what Glassdoor.com is trying to do. Actually, this week the company announced a $6.5 million venture capital round (the total amount raised since its founding is $9.5 million). The investors include: Sutter Hill Ventures and Benchmark Capital.

So far, Glassdoor.com has attracted 115,000 contributions from its user base (the site launched in June). Basically, they have provided information about their employers, such as on salaries, culture and so on. There are even ratings of company CEOs.

All in all, it's a neat idea. After all, making the decision on a new job is critical -- but often fraught with uncertainty. So why now allow the community to help out?

According to the Glassdoor blog:

"Now more than ever, people want to know what it's really like inside a company and more and more employees are sharing details about their jobs and work environments. With increased resources, employees and employers can improve upon the decisions they make for their career and for their company. In this environment, in particular, we think this investment sends a strong signal about the value of the information available on Glassdoor.com to people around the globe."

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Streetsmart Guide to Short Selling: Techniques the Pros Use to Profit in Any Market. He is also the founder of BizEquity, a valuation website.

This past holiday weekend my colleague Doug McIntyre gave support to a blog I wrote in May 2007 when he posted Google (GOOG): The Failure Of YouTube. In my rant I gave a detailed analysis outlining how Google had overpaid for YouTube by a fantastic amount.

In the story Doug quotes projections that 2008 revenue generated by Google might gross $200 million from YouTube. That's revenue, not profit. A 20% profit would be $40 million if that was possible. In the article I wrote: How can I say Google overpaid for YouTube? I stated the case in plain English why the YouTube investment would have to earn $300 million (net, not gross) minimum, in its first year not to be dillutive.

They missed the target by a mile. They will continue to miss the target and I do not expect it to ever justify the cost. Just because Google has lots of cash slushing around does not mean they have money to waste.

It seems to me like the ultimate test of a tool lies not with its functionality, but with who uses it. This goes double for search tools, as their ability to access information vastly increases their popularity, and thus marketability. Personally, I firmly believe that most questions in the world can be answered by one of three sites. If it's a movie or TV question, I head to IMDB. If IMDB doesn't have the answer, I generally head over to Wikipedia. And if, for some reason, Wiki's answer doesn't suffice, I pull out the big guns and head over to Google (NASDAQ: GOOG). Of course, so does pretty much everyone else in the world.

This, of course, explains why the United States has begun investing heavily in Google Ads in foreign countries. While the government's online presence is pretty impressive, even the best website is only useful if it can generate hits; given the United States' overseas unpopularity right now, getting foreign nationals to visit its sites is an uphill battle. With this in mind, Google now displays ads for various United States government agencies when the user enters various key words and phrases. Currently, the terms that will generate an ad from the America.gov website include "terrorism," "Middle East peace," "human rights," "press freedom," and "U.S. elections."

The U.S. is paying Google based on the number of hits that its ads generate. Currently, that ranges from $25,000 to $30,000 per month for the America.gov website and a further $15,000 for other Middle-East oriented sites. Given that the $15,000 expenditure generates roughly 300,000 hits per month, it seems like a pretty good deal. For that matter, it's worth noting that an internet search platform has become the U.S. government's go-to guy for worldwide advertising. If Google can get people in Saudi Arabia to express an interest in the U.S.'s informational website, it seems like there's little that the company can't do!

According to a report by Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), more music listeners search for information about music acts on Wikipedia than they do on News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) MySpace site, which features media from the acts. Wikipedia is also outpacing "official band websites" as well. The difference may well be the ease of navigating a Wiki page over a MySpace page and the free, uncopyrighted content that can be offered in a Wiki. Jay Walsh, the communications manager for Wikipedia cited this exact scenario, stating that the website was not preparing to add any music content, staying with "content [listeners] can use and enjoy without worrying about violating any copyrights."

From personal experience, I see how this scenario is accurate. More often than not, a Wikipedia page is just simpler and easier to navigate since it does not require a long loading time (this might not be a major issue for some internet users though) due to a large quantity of media-related content. The pages also always seem to have better information about what albums are available and what reviews have said about those albums. MySpace pages may not feature these aspects (although some do), but more often than not it just feels hard to navigate a page because of the layout and the ads that are on the site.

When Wikipedia was conceived, few would have thought it would end up in the regular top-10 of internet sites -- but it has. The largest encyclopedia in the world has a viewership that any entity on the web would kill for. Its strength remains in the ability of anyone to create and edit encyclopedia entries, giving the power to the people (literally).

What was next, then, for Jimmy Wales, one of Wikipedia's founders? Why, a search engine, of course. Although Google has a tight grip on that market already, the new Wikia.com believes it can contend for the internet search championship belt at some point in time. It's off to a very rocky start (and sorely disappointing to many), but does Wikia.com have a chance to compete against Google where internet stalwarts Yahoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) have so far failed? if so, why?

According to Wales, Wikia.com will succeed because it will be more trustworthy than any other internet search provider. His reason is the same one that has made Wikipedia so popular: anyone will be able to control the results returned from a Wikia.com search. No automated Google algorithms or automated software bots that can be rigged to giving certain search results.

Is Wales correct? Will customers see the value in being able to vote down results that are fluff or not very relevant better than Google's artificially intelligent software? If customers do see this value -- and enough of them start using Wikia.com -- Google could potentially see its largest threat yet in the internet search arena. But it will be years down the road from now before consumers flock to anything other than Google.

Started in 2001, Wikipedia has grown into a massive knowledge base, with more than 75,000 contributors and nine million articles.

No doubt Wikipedia is a great resource to learn about the bigger companies – such as Starbucks Corporation (Nasdaq: SBUX), Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG), and Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT). But there are also many smaller businesses on the site.

So, should you jump in too?

"Wikipedia is one of the most frequented databases on the Web," said Dan Nichols, director of marketing communications at RightNow Technologies (Nasdaq: RNOW). "We posted an entry on RightNow to make sure we were accurately represented on the site and to increase awareness."

Keep in mind that a Wikipedia page can help improve your website's search engine rank – and perhaps drive some traffic. What's more, a Wikipedia page can lend some credibility to your business.

However, you need to consider some things:

Late Thursday, Google mentioned yet another web service (although, this one could be a big one): Google Knol (which stands for a unit of knowledge).

Basically, this is a knowledge base – where experts write up articles and users have a chance to benefit from the wisdom. The system is currently under an invitation-only status.

With huge amounts of content across the web, it's often hard to find the quality stuff. Even if you go to places like Wikipedia, it's not easy to get a sense of the accuracy. Often, I use these sources as a starting point – not something that's definitive.

As expected, Google wants knols for all topics, which is certainly ambitious and will likely encounter problems along the way. But, it's certainly a worthy goal – and, in the end, could result in a valuable property.

More importantly, Google will share revenues with the experts (through advertising). This will certainly be a big differentiator, as other wikis, such as Wikinvest and Wikipedia, rely on authors who do it for fun.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He also operates DealProfiles.com.

In a move that has tremendous symbolic significance, Wikipedia will begin paying contributors for producing certain sought-after illustrations.

Philip Greenspun donated $20,000 to fund the program, and according to the New York Times, "The woman running the project for Wikipedia, Brianna Laugher, says the plan is to create a list of articles that need illustrations and then solicit the work. The first list is expected to have 50 illustrations and be completed this month. Contributors will be able to sign up for an illustration and have two weeks to submit it; if it is accepted, the illustrator will be paid $40."

This will be the first time that the foundation that runs the site will pay contributors for their work.

Some might consider this to be a slippery slope -- Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia that it's produced entirely by volunteers? But apparently the site had few people willing to do certain illustrations, and is hoping the nominal compensation will help improve the site.

If Wikipedia really does restrict its pay for production to a few illustrations, it shouldn't have any impact on the site's reputation. But further payment could lead to the complaints that public broadcasting has faced as increased on-air thank you's of sponsors bear a suspicious similarity to commercials.

So this is pretty scary. Business writer George Orwel has come under fire for lifting, almost word for word, five paragraphs out of a Wikipedia entry for his book Black Gold: The New Frontier for Oil investors, published by Wiley.

According to The New York Times, "Copying from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia produced by tens of thousands of contributors, does not raise the same legal complications as copying from a copyrighted book. According to Mike Godwin, the lead lawyer at the Wikimedia Foundation, under Wikipedia's license anyone can reprint material found there as long as Wikipedia is given credit and the license itself is reprinted, assuring that the material continues to roam free."

But that isn't even the point -- high schools across the country warn students to never, ever, ever, use Wikipedia as a source for a scholarly paper because, and this is important, anyone can edit it. If I wanted to, I could log on to Wikipedia right now and edit the entry for "Wall Street Journal" to say that, next to BloggingStocks, it's the most respected name in business journalism. And it would remain there, until someone else edited it.

I haven't read Mr. Orwel's book and, given Wiley's stellar reputation, it's probably quite good. But the use of Wikipedia as a source, to say nothing of copying text from the site, raises concerns about the quality of the research.

With the continued success of Wikipedia, there's some talk about whether there are opportunities to create popular niche wikis.

That's what Wikinvest is trying to do. And as the name implies, the site is focused primarily on individual investors.

In fact, this week the firm received $2.5 million in venture funding (the lead investor is DCM).

Basically, it's a bet on the "wisdom of the crowds." And, it's a model that has worked with discussion boards, such as with Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO).

Yet, there are risks.

As an avid user of Wikipedia, I've come to appreciate the unbiased and incredibly detailed information that appears there on just about any subject that can be imagined. From U.S. Civil War information to human genome research to bios on CEOs, it is all there for the reading, editing and edification of anyone with an internet connection.

Scratch that -- did I say "unbiased?" While the power of crowds is theoretically known to produce the most accurate and historically correct information (no agendas required), companies and individuals that want to tilt the balance show up and start modifying "facts" with a certain slant. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, and when the black trenchcoats change something to reflect some kind of favorable position, there is generally a "truthsayer" who will change it back. Consider it a game of truth-telling "cat and mouse" for the digital age.

Now, there are tools that allow the administrators of the website (and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales) to see who exactly is changing Wikipedia entries -- so that "false" edits can be tracked down to their source. Often, politicians and company execs are the ones trying to turn the tables on criticisms, but with such tracking information available from tools like WikiScanner now available, will Wikipedia be more of a trusted sources for information than it has been?

One would think that open editing accessibility would prompt massive misrepresentations, but this is not the case with Wikipedia. In fact, corporate leaders baring all and being naked is the only way many of them will survive. Twisting facts and editing entries to tilt viewpoints will ultimately lead to exposure. I won't touch political manipulation here, though that does happen. And yes, it's been exposed when it does.

Google's unveiling of "universal search" last week meant that its search customers could now see results from web searches not only in terms of related website results, but from video and news sources as well. Previously, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) had not combined search results into a single "one-stop shop" for search customers (who had to visit more Google sites). Well, that is no longer the case. Just perform a search at www.google.com and look at how the results are presented, along with the navigation at the top of your screen.

With all the mess some news websites and companies have given Google in the past, it may get a little worse for Google now that search customers can "find" news articles and related information from news-based websites much more easily than before. Although Google News doesn't "publish" a thing, some have sued Google because it includes (not steals) content from news websites all over the web. I've never heard of an encyclopedia company being sued, nor Wikipedia. But, Google is a target precisely because of how large and popular it is. Information democratization is just not in the vocabulary of some.

Now, news stories and such have appeared in standard Google search results for quite a while now. But, with "News" being right there -- front and center -- as a search resource, will the company see more action in terms of so-called "copyright infringement"? Most likely, yes. Smart news-based websites realize that partnering with Google is great for business (when done correctly), and the "old guard" realizes that fighting off readers is probably not good for business. "Walled gardens" are being torn down and that will not stop. Google will see to that, and for the term "information superhighway" to continue meaning anything, progress needs to move forward, right?

With the surge of Google Inc.'s (Nasdaq: GOOG) YouTube and other online video sites, it makes sense to assume that tons of people are uploading their videos. Well, conventional wisdom isn't always right.

According to a recent study from Hitwise, not many people are engaging in this activity. In fact, only 0.16% of visits to YouTube involve uploading videos. There was also a low participation rate for Yahoo! Inc.'s (Nasdaq: YHOO) Flickr.

Although, Wikipedia has attracted an active user base. About 4.6% of visits involve those who edit pages.

I had a chance to talk to Greg Kostello, who is the founder and CEO of vMix (an online video site). According to him:

"I think the ratio of 100 to 1 or 25 to 1 is pretty consistent over the last ten years. Whether it's simple forums or blogs or rich media, the vast majority of people would rather consume than contribute. Creation is hard, consumption is easy. Even if you are an active contributor you probably spend a lot more time browsing than creating. Now, the goal for any site is to turn those that passively consume to active contributors. Wikipedia has done an excellent job of making it fairly easy to contribute. The key point is not really the percentage of active members that contribute. The goal is to make your site compelling to contributors. They will draw an audience. Sometimes the audience is small, sometimes large, but all content seems to draw an audience, even if it's just your friends and family."

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and the EDGAR-Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements.

BloggingStocks writer John Ogg recently reported on Time Warner's decision to discontinue the print publication of Life, which has had some of the most famous magazine covers in history, including the shot of Marylin Monroe pictured here.

While that magazine has been struggling (and going in and out of print) for decades, there is a certain degree of symbolism in its downfall: Once one of the most read magazines in the world Life, like the print media in general, has faced increased competition for internet sources.

The reason that it has gone out of print, ultimately, is that the Time Warner executives in charge of the magazine were unable to answer this question: Why should I buy a copy of Life instead of getting similar content on the internet?

Wikipedia is a stunning success story. It is one of the most trafficked sites on the Web and certainly has a wealth of knowledge.

But, there have been problems. For example, there was the former Wikipedian contributor who lied that he was a professor of theology (he was actually a college drop out).

Now, there's a new rival for Wikipedia: Citizendium. In fact, the founder of the site, Larry Sanger, is also the cofounder of Wikipedia.

The angle? Well, Citizendium's contributors must provide their real names as well as fact-check articles. There is also an editorial board.

I have some concerns though. Let's face it, who can remember a name like Citizendium? Besides, Wikipedia already has lots of mindshare and is well-embedded in Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), and other search engines. In theory, Citizendium makes sense and addresses a need. But, it's hard to see it catching on.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and the EDGAR-Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements.