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.

13 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 SomeJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should write the algebra entry.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    3. 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?
    4. Re:Losing Anonymity? by hostyle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or the entry for Knol-it-all

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    5. Re:Losing Anonymity? by j01123 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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".

    6. Re:Losing Anonymity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  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. Scholarpedia? by jnana · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Knol on Wikipedia, Wikipedia on Knol by Glasswire · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. Wikipedia is a large stategic threat to Google by solferino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. 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.