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.

Comments

Losing Anonymity?

[snowgirl]

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.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[chris_mahan]

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.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[SomeJoel]

You should write the algebra entry.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[Sockatume]

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)

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[snowgirl]

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.

At least Wikipedia has good information then. I don't see the problem.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[sick_soul]

I agree, and in addition there is currently
no context when creating a new article.
It's maybe just too soon, but the process seems
to make it more difficult to reach critical mass.

I wanted to start writing something, but
desisted, because I found no contextual information.

On wikipedia I would read some article, see a
dangling link with no page associated, and create
one from there. Or read an existing one, and
just add additional information, or correct
some detail.

Otherwise it is hard to just start writing
general, context-free articles about
"what I know". Maybe they should have started
with wikipedia content, applying the new process
for further edits and new articles, in order
to already have a lot of context already.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[atari2600]

Excellent point - the reason that Google has Knol out is the reason they have Image Labeler out. Create content (for Google) / test Google's software for free while enjoying Google's "free" offerings.

I can see Knol as being beneficial from the perspective of selling my own goods (free advertising) but it's not really a replacement for Wikipedia and I don't think Google wants/intends Knol to replace Wikipedia. Knol is about sharing expertise and I don't see a reason why Wikipedia and Knol can co-exist in harmony.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[snowgirl]

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

With Wiki you don't know if the author knows anything about the subject whereas with Knol you can see the author's qualifications.

Right, but why rely upon ethos for evaluating the correctness of an article? Are we really going to jump into the fallacy of appeal to authority so quickly?

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[hostyle]

Or the entry for Knol-it-all

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[j01123]

You should write the algebra entry.

No way, he improperly uses upper-case letters for variables. I'll write the "algebra" entry using "x" and "y" and he can write an "Algebra" entry using "X" and "Y".

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Losing Anonymity?

[Serious Callers Only]

Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous...

This is also the biggest problem with wikipedia, and a good reason never to trust anything you find there. There have been several scandals on wikipedia of information being modified by interested parties - I would link to wikipedia, but I don't think they have a page about that.

In future most knowledge databases will be attributed, like Knol, because that leads to accountability, which leads to accuracy.

Online Resources

[Narpak]

I think it is good that there is competition in this field. Perhaps the two services can even come to complement each other, or at least provide a good database of information based on different principles. At the very least it should force both to do their best to provide a good easy interface and information that is as far as is possible; verified.

Re:Online Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Online Resources

[nbauman]

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.

Wikipedia ^ ~Wikipedia

[Metasquares]

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

Re:Wikipedia ^ ~Wikipedia

[elgaard]

It is also a Wikipedia without database dumps.

Even if much of the material will be under a creative-commons, no one but Google can control Knol in the future.
So no forks.

Not bad, but it's missing something

[Reality Master 201]

Wikipedia definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.

But Knol seems to be missing the best part of wikipedia - extensive internal links. Half the fun of wikipedia is looking up something, then wasting a couple hours wandering through topics till you get someplace you might not have gone otherwise.

Re:Not bad, but it's missing something

[pgillan]

And that, of course, is also the fun of looking up something in a dead-tree encyclopedia. As you look up the article you need, you run across other interesting articles and end up learning all sorts of unexpected things.

In a dead-tree encyclopedia, sure, I might look up information about the Serengeti, and then learn all kinds of interesting things about spiders, shoelaces, and salmonella, but with Wikipedia I can learn about things that start with other letters.

Re:Not bad, but it's missing something

[nomadic]

Wikipedia definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.

I don't mind, I'm used to that. I've been reading slashdot for 10 years.

More of a blog than an encyclopedia

[aembleton]

I've only really looked at this article, which was the most prominently featured on their front page. Reading the first few paragraphs it comes across as one persons view and experiences as opposed to an encyclopaedia. Some work will need to be done on this if it is to be a serious challenger to Wikipedia.

Typing Equations?

[biased_estimator]

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.

Scholarpedia?

[jnana]

On the topic of Wikipedia-like sites, I recently found Scholarpedia, which I imagine a lot of slashdotters might like. They don't have that much content yet, and they are currently focusing on a few fields (science- and tech-related), but I have found some really high-quality articles by experts in the field, like:

Neural Correlates of Consciousness, by Christof Koch.

Algorithmic Information Theory, my Marcus Hutter.

Knol on Wikipedia, Wikipedia on Knol

[Glasswire]

Knol on Wikipedia is pretty empty. Whereas
Wikipedia on Knol is very informative.
Is that an indicator?

Wikipedia is a large stategic threat to Google

[solferino]

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.

Licensing

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:pr0n

[SplinterOfChaos]

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.

Re:Losing Anonymity? 8-bit? Haiku?

[R4wBon3]

Thanks for pointing that out.. Otherwise I would've continued to think he was writing an on-topic poem on his 8-bit terminal.