Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Knol, Expert Wiki, Goes Live

Posted by kdawson on from the trusting-in-experts dept.

Brian Jordan and other readers sent in word that Google has taken the wraps off Knol, its expert-written challenger to Wikipedia. (We discussed Knol when it was announced last year.) Wired has an in-depth look. Knol's distinctions from Wikipedia are that authors are identified by their real names (and verified), and that they can share in ad revenue if they choose to. The service initially features a lot of medical articles, which is interesting considering that Medipedia also launched today. This medical wiki is backed by Harvard's and Stanford's medical schools.

6 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Losing Anonymity? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous... would you really want someone to know that despite being a huge football fan, you also knew about My Little Pony?

    I like the "anonymity" on Wikipedia, and I don't think this Knol can measure up, simply because of that reason.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:Losing Anonymity? by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The other thing I think will become a problem is when Expert A writes an article on Subject X, then Expert B says, hey, Subject X is missing information Z, and Export A says no way, and Expert B can't write Subject X, but will write Subject AlmostX, and then you end up with two articles on Subject X. In wikipedia, the two articles would be merged. Knol is gonna have a big synthesis problem.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Losing Anonymity? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, this is rather more transparent. When Expert X and Expert Y are putting out mutually contradictory versions of events, then the reader must critically evaluate them both. If it turns out that Y uses shoddy references and mostly cites his own work, while X has a wide-ranging and substantial reference base to build his article on, then it's clear that X is the one to trust, and Google gets to stay out of it.

      By contrast, on Wikipedia, Author X's content will dominate the article while Author Y gets into a massive edit war, is banned, and runs off to spin some yarn to The Register about how he's persecuted by The Cabal. Then Wikipedia's image is tarnished.


      (TINC)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  2. Wikipedia ^ ~Wikipedia by Metasquares · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like Wikipedia but without the open collaboration which made Wikipedia successful.

  3. Typing Equations? by biased_estimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I only looked at it briefly, but they don't provide an easy way to type equations? I suppose that might be a lot to ask for... I guess I'll just have to LaTeXiT.

  4. Re:pr0n by SplinterOfChaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I LOVE how they use lighting to make the un-"enhanced" women look paler and less healthy. It's good to finally see a place I can go to and know I'm given unbiased, true information.