Slashdot Mirror
Google's Knol, Expert Wiki, Goes Live
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.
This actually reminds me somewhat of academic publishing. One expert writes an article, and if it's a worthwhile article that gets attention and another expert has views that differ significantly, they can write a counterpoint.
The nice part about this new system is that the ORIGINAL article can be revised immediately. If the first author is intellectually honest, they'll take any criticisms into account and revise what they've written where they find it appropriate, and maybe add links to the counterpoint article. So ideally, you'd get a nice network of interrelated expert opinions that you could compare and contrast on their merits, rather than Wikipedia's studied "neutrality" that often ends up hurting as much as it helps.
I've said it before on Slashdot. Wikipedia is a large strategic threat to Google.
With things like the Wikipedia search box in Firefox people can go directly to the Wikipedia page on a subject rather than type it in to Google. If they want to read further they will follow the external links at the bottom of the page. Every time they go to Wikipedia directly that is lost revenue for Google.
Search engines are good but they are good for active thinkers. Most people are passive readers and they just want to read a basic overview and have a few selected quality links to take them further if need be.
Hence Knol. Google's competitor to Wikipedia. But it's too late. Good.
Except when the sources are bad. Take this knol article, for instance
http://knol.google.com/k/hunter-handsfield/safe-sex/nAi5F17X/WdH0tg#
This safe sex page doesn't even mention that going into IT can ensure a 100% avoidance of STDS. And they call themselves experts!
That's interesting. H. Hunter Handsfield is one of the top experts on STDs in the U.S. I have a textbook with his chapters, and I heard him give a lecture on STDs at a National Institutes of Health conference. That conference was not a good place to pick up girls.
He's also the author of the famous color atlas of STDs, which is another good way to discourage activities which lead to STDs.
The New Scientist reported on a conference in London in which participants tried out different pickup lines and evaluated the results.
The worst pickup line of all: "I have a PhD in computer science."
So you are correct in that respect.
having inserted a completely fake article into wikipedia and having had it edited multiple times with even more crap and having it last for over 4 years before some uber admin figured out the article was a steaming heap of garbage from the beginning, its a lot easier to get a biased piece of crap into wikipedia than you think.
subtle errors can be put into wikipedia more easily than you think. and are extremely hard to catch after 50-60 people have edited it.
I was all set to rant about what license they wanted to publish on, and would Google own everything, etc.
But it looks like they're going with Creative Commons or keep it to yourself. And I don't see any requirement to sign over the copyright, so I could always publish something both on Knol and elsewhere, under entirely different terms. Cool!
I could, however, rant about how it's not a wiki at all.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!