Here is the story:
The major difference of Google's version is that it will identify the source of the units of knowledge. If you write something for googipedia, you get your face and name plastered beside the article. I think this is a good idea.
In these forums I will often skip over many responses until I see a name that I believe is trustworthy. Trust is keenly important in science - knowledge depends on trust, as does truth. While doubt and skepticism navigate through the waters of possibility, filtering out all the impossible from the actual, it is trust and acceptance that navigate the seas of human communication. I have to trust you in order to efficiently exchange information with you. I can only do this once my doubt has been waylaid. Otherwise doubt increases the amount of time and energy it takes for us to exchange information (because I've got to sort things out first before I believe you.) More trust = less processing time between interactions. The flow of information increases.
If Google can create a base of trustworthy authority figures, this will be a massive step beyond wikipedia. It has been argued that we are losing our authority figures to our detriment in this information age, because self-expression predominates over any kind of censor/filter.
Trusted sources are invaluable. If googipedia could also be peer-reviewed, then we'd be on to something. Any thoughts out there?