Google's "Knol" Reinvents Wikipedia 272
teslatug writes "Google appears to be reinventing Wikipedia with their new product that they call knol (not yet publicly available). In an attempt to gather human knowledge, Google will accept articles from users who will be credited with the article by name. If they want, they can allow ads to appear alongside the content and they will be getting a share of the profits if that's the case. Other users will be allowed to rate, edit or comment on the articles. The content does not have to be exclusive to Google but no mention is made on any license for it. Is this a better model for free information gathering?"
might be (Score:5, Interesting)
Google did this once before, in spite of what they say to the contrary, against Sourceforge. In that case, good though they are, Sourceforge was becoming quite unreliable for non paying users, and their service, while including many wonderful options, was unweildy to use.
Along came google with google code. It's a simpler service, nowhere near the features of sourceforge, but for sheer simplicity it's a joy. I wasn't alone in moving there.
Will I use knol? Well it might be just the place to place some articles derived from papers I've published, we shall see.
Remember the Webcomic Deletions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Knol claims to be open to all knowledge of entertainment so it's possible it could be seen as a safe haven for these fans & anyone who's been struck by the notability hammer. I could see them hopping on the wayback machine and just putting their words back into digital print
I never did see anything mentioned about the horror case of me writing my own autobiography as a knol. That wasn't addressed but I guess they'll flesh that stuff out. It'll be interesting to see where they draw the line and, like you said, who moves to the other model.
Not too pander... (Score:1, Interesting)
What is relevant human knowledge? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ad revenue for contributors? Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, will we see a new form of "typo squatting", where people create articles with titles like "Slahsdot", linking to the correct article but again generating ad revenue? Meh. (Or worse, the typo page comes up like the real, incorrect slahsdot url with the words I loathe most on any web page "sponsored links", or "popular searches", and a bunch of link spam).
All it takes is microtransactions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, all we need is a "Google Bank" sort of thing, managing microtransactions for everyone on the planet with zero-fuss international transactions. Google actually has the power to handle this.
If they pull through with this add-powered thing it is likely they can move up against Wikipedia in terms of content amount. Add in comments, ratings and suggestions to knol and you have a semi-wikipedia sort of thing that even pays of for the effort of the authors. Not the worst idea if you think of it. It could very well work.
My 2 cents.
Re:"Free Information Gathering?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Oops, someone may be in trouble... the image [flickr.com] on that page is CC licensed for "non-commercial" only.
Re:Remember the Webcomic Deletions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, yes, it would be.
Did you for instance know that one of the reasons so many copies of fifties and sixties comics and novella's are around is that shipping companies used to buy them in bulk and use them as ballast? They'd then sell them on when they arrived at their destination. Nowadays those very same comics are, as you know, bought and sold for hundreds of dollers sometimes.
I know this because I relied on that very thing to keep me supplied here in the UK. I'd prefer if a slightly more reliable means of preserving for posterity were available for the current online 'pulp' phenomena. Wikipedia refusing to do so is snobbery, and lack of foresight.
Re:Trying to promote a new catchword too. (Score:2, Interesting)
500 had FooStor hard drives
300 had BarMax hard drives
200 had BazStar hard drives
out of 500 FooStor hard drives there were 300 failures
out 300 BarMax hard drives there were 3 failures
out of 200 BazStar hard drives, there were no failures
That's data.
Knowledge is knowing that the FooStor hard drives and pieces of shit and you shouldn't use them.
Re:This is so unlike Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo. Sure, I can write an article, but there will likely be errors - no matter how informed I am on the topic. With peer review these can be mostly fixed*.
Now, if I can adjust the article based on reviews I receive, reviewers can basically be editors. That would be nice, and perhaps better to have a single point of control for each article. But how will 'legacy' pages be handled - for example, if I get hit by a bus later in the day, or even just lose interest?
That's even without addressing what happens when a rabid anti/pro bush extremist manages to be the first to submit the article for 'Bush, George'. Or even somebody of only middling knowledge.
There are arguements either way, but I personally think that even with wiki's issues, it's still a better model.
*Errors will creep up regardless.
Re:"Free Information Gathering?" (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I don't totally agree with is the sentiment "competition of ideas is a good thing." For conversational, social and political topics this is certainly true, but the same can not be said for ALL subjects. Where science is concerned, for example, not all "ideas" have the same value.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Regardless, I can't see how it could end up WORSE than Wikipedia and it's still as free as anything else (ie ads don't cost the visitor any relevant amount of money)
=Smidge=
Re:This is so unlike Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe someone will gather all the information in the comments and create an article that ends up being better rated. That way, there is always a best article. The articles will take longer to correct than in a wiki model but then, it may be compensated by more reliable information, because more people are encouraged to write and the result is a more refined article.
If the model works like I think, there are going to be many articles on the same subject, but the highest rated, better reviewed articles should be on top. I would definitely would like to read more about their model. It should be opened, if they want it to work. I for one, would love to try to publish articles here.
Re:How Do You Assure Authority? (Score:3, Interesting)
Once it may carry a certain obscure topic, then decide it's too obscure and delete the page. If you're lucky, it may get pushed to a third party "more suited" to carrying such content. Problem is, if the page is deleted, then the link to the third party hosting the information can get lost. Even such things like trivia that might be fun to know get expunged as irrelevant in a "serious reference site". Other such things stay in Wikipedia. (c.f. StrategyWiki inheriting game stuff from Wikibooks, and the webcomic stuff of late).
I like Wikipedia, and it's generally my go-to site for anything I might want to know, but the attempts to enhance some topics while expunging others may mean that there are better sites out there and maybe one's first stop shouldn't be Wikipedia, but Google, in case Wikipedia has removed what you were looking for...
Re:Trying to promote a new catchword too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Knowledge is knowing that the FooStor hard drives and pieces of shit and you shouldn't use them.
Isn't that data as well? It's certainly an extrapolation of previously recorded data:
out of 500 FooStor hard drives there were 300 failures
While there are many arguments about intelligence, it would seem that knowledge would be properly defined as the accumulation of data. Whether bad data (incorrect knowledge, e.g. witches made of wood like ducks) counts as knowledge is a topic all its own ...
Webster's definition [m-w.com] does seem to back you up at least on its face, since although it includes "knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association" as well as an example of what you have above, "the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning," however, it also includes "the range of one's information or understanding" as well as "the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind."
So according to some definitions of knowledge data would seem to be an equivalent, but others require the processing (understanding) of data (like in your example). Based on the article though Knols look like data to me...
Re:This is so unlike Wikipedia (Score:2, Interesting)
I was a happy, active Wikipedian for several years. Yeah, there were times when my edits didn't survive, but that was something I just had to accept. There's a reason why I edited for several years, and then quit -- it's that things changed for the worse. The barn-raising phase was over, and the efficiency of working on WP (defined as results divided by effort) was getting lower and lower.