While Wikipedia wrestle with their editorial demons, Google have officially launched Knol. According to the website, a knol is a "unit of knowledge", or more specifically, "an authoritative article about a specific topic". Each topic has an author who has exclusive ownership of the topic which is associated with them. An author can allow visitors to comment on knols, or suggest changes; however, unlike Wikipedia, the author cannot be challenged. This is what Google refers to as "moderated collaboration".
Says Google:
"With Knol, we are introducing a new method for authors to work together that we call 'moderated collaboration'. With this feature, any reader can make suggested edits to a knol which the author may then choose to accept, reject, or modify before these contributions become visible to the public. This allows authors to accept suggestions from everyone in the world while remaining in control of their content. After all, their name is associated with it!"A knol is supposed to be an authoritative and credible article, and Google have therefore placed a strong emphasis on author credentials. This is apparent from the moment you visit Knol. Medical knols are written by bona fide doctors; DIY advice is provided by a genuine handyman – and their identities are verified.
Knol is clearly a direct challenge to the supremacy of Wikipedia; yet it jettisons many of the aspects that made Wikipedia popular in the first place. And it does this to maintain information integrity. Am I sorry about this? 'Yes' and 'no'. For me Knol represents a useful halfway house; a balance between networked collaboration and information integrity. Is this elitist? No - it's just common sense.
What do you think? Register your vote on the poll!
An interesting article appeared in the Guardian today noting potential spamming issues for Knol. The article also notes that Knol may receive special treatment within Google's Pagerank Algorithm. This is actually contrary to my understanding. Google has stated that Knol articles will not jump up the result rankings, and this appears to be borne out by other coverage; however, there are others that consider Google to be ranking Knol articles higher - quite innocently. I think I believe Google, but time will tell...
ReplyDeleteWhile looking into the above issues, I stumbled upon this article which provides rather nasty evidence of how Wikipedia can go wrong, even with some of the most high profile articles! Ouch!