|
|
Google launches Knol
Author: Gareth HalfacreePublished: 24th July 2008
The Knol database is pretty sparse at the moment, but it shows promise as a varied knowledge repository.
Unlike Wikipedia, in which anonymous authors gather to make a page containing references to other sites around the 'net – and which can change from minute to minute, depending on the bias of the last person to edit said page – the 'knols', as the articles will be known, are aimed at having an actual named author behind each page. By introducing this accountability, and by removing the restrictions on original research present in Wikipedia and similar on-line encyclopaedias, Google hopes to create a more reliable resource.
Announced on the official Google blog yesterday, the service has now gone live. When you sign up, you can create any page you like under your name – so far, so Wikipedia-with-attribution. Where it rapidly differs is when a third party tries to edit your page: rather than the changes being made anonymously, the edits are submitted for your approval. If you disagree with the edits, you can modify them before posting or even reject them outright.
Cedric Dupont and Michael McNally at Google, both of whom demonstrated the idea of collaborative authorship by contributing to the same Google blog post, say that this system of “moderated collaboration” allows authors to “accept suggestions from everyone in the world while remaining in control of their content. After all, their name is associated with it!”
It's clear to see that the Knol will appeal to many webheads the world over – all the fun of editing a Wikipedia page, but people actually get to know your name. A further method for tempting the Wikians away from the promised land is offered with optional AdSense content being added to your knol – if you tick the 'ad' box, you get a share of the proceeds.
The thrust behind Knol is pushing it in a different direction to Wikipedia – whereas the latter aims to create single pages that are authoratitive resources for a particular topic, the team see multiple knols springing up for each item of discussion. While there are arguments for both systems, the Knol way of doing things will at least make it easier to get multiple viewpoints without having to go into the editing history of a hotly-contested page.
The final, and rather bizzare, unique feature of Knol is in Google's agreement with the New Yorker magazine – anyone creating a knol has the option to add a cartoon from the magazine's archives to illustrate their point.
Do you see Knol carving a niche for itself – possibly even becoming the default homepage for lazy students the world over – or does Wikipedia have too much of a head start, even with the might of Google bearing down upon it? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (14)
Stats: 0.137 seconds
I can see the topic tree now:
-The War in Iraq is just
-No it isnt
-yes it is
-Its spelled Irak
-Back to topic: no it isn't
-New spelling according to link
-why talk about spelling and not about just wars
-unjust wars
and so on and so on
I really can't see how this is going to work. Look at the front page right now... Who the hell is "Ryan Moulton" and why would I want HIS opinion on backpacking?? Just because he writes neat articles and (presumably) shouts the loudest, doesn't mean he know sanything at all.
I think the point of Wikipedia was that by virtue of having multiple authors, articles would tend towards a neutral POV over time.
http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10545&format=html
It's not like the bias problem on Wiki isn't there anymore. But if Wiki were set up like Knol, a mess like the CAMERA+DOJ mess would result in (at least) one pro-Israel page, (at least) one pro-Palestine page, and (maybe) one accurate page. And take a wild guess which page would get the least popular preference. As it stands, it will inevitably end up (as Xir noted) like a forum board - a different article for every viewpoint, including the ones that are in no way based on fact.
If Google had some way of making sure that authoritative, reasonably neutral sources were in charge of creating and maintaining their articles, then maybe it would result in a credible source of information. But they don't. And they can't.
- Diosjenin -
...
Eh, what the hell, who honestly compared a search engine to a page search feature lol, I'll tell you who, somone who dosnt deserve to be a Bit-Tech member.
Anyone 'deserves' to be a Bit-Tech member. Elitism isn't welcome..