It’s just like a Wikipedia, only with named author(s) for each article, meaning that you could probably cite it in a paper. Knol encourages authorship by sharing AdSense revenue with users. Also, you can insert cartoons from The New Yorker. That’s actually not a joke.
(That’s right, I’m quoting myself. Award me ten ego points.)
The central ideological difference between Wikipedia and Knol is that articles are penned by experts rather than relying on collective knowledge. Instinctually, it sounds like a more reliable system, but past studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
Of course, this doesn’t stop us from digesting Wikipedia with cautious skepticism. I’ve heard of a handful of professors who’ve jumped on the wiki bandwagon and forced their class to create joint entries on course material. The idea is that each student can bring something new to the table and will collectively tweak the entry to perfection. What actually happens, though, is that the more capable students just end up re-writing everything. (When it’s for a grade, you can’t rely on anyone but yourself, right?)
So I welcome Knol as a competitor, even if Google claims it isn’t. As I said in my Bureaucracy blurb, I’m anxious for a Wikipedia-like resource that can be cited in academic writing. I use Wikipedia as a starting point for unfamiliar topics, but entries too frequently have missing citations, which can lead to a dead end in research. (Though I’ve always suspected that many teachers resent Wikipedia because it makes research too easy.)
There are many obstacles to Knol’s success. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and with the author verification process, Knol will never catch up. Wikipedia is also nonprofit, whereas Knol will be supported by Google AdSense. My biggest issue will be getting past the fact that Knol is short for "knowledge." Also, people forget that even Google is capable of producing a flop.
Google Video, anyone?
Knol also has a ways to go. For example, the site design, though slick, lacks organization. Try finding anything in the directory. Also, from what I've seen, articles lack the linkable footnotes of Wikipedia.
I think the most important development of Knol is Google’s shift from aggregating content to being a provider of content. Knol may or may not succeed, but it’s a sign of the direction Google is moving. That’s a little scary -- the same company controls what you read and how you find it.
Please, don’t be evil.
Some other related errata
- According to Ars Technica, Mahalo and Citizendium are similar concepts.
- Best comment on Bits’s write-up of Knol: "Knol has no information on Optimus Prime."
- The Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia. How postmodern!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment