Google's "Knol" Reinvents Wikipedia

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?"

Guess the language!

Google'a Knol

Klingon?

Trying to promote a new catchword too.

Google is trying to promote knol as a new buzzword [doubletongued.org] meaning "a unit of knowledge."

I wonder how many knol's Slashdot is worth?

Re:Trying to promote a new catchword too.

Is it seriously so hard to form "plural's" in English? :(

Re:Trying to promote a new catchword too.

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...

Huh?

The headline, blurb and link create a perfect storm of incomprehensibility -- that I had to go to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to figure out what the hell this is about isn't an auspicious beginning, and I still have no idea what "Google'a" is.

This is so unlike Wikipedia

All they're basically proposing is that you write an article as best as you can and they host it, giving you a tiny share of the revenue it generates. So instead of watching edit wars and being able to check out multiple opinions you now have to take the whole article as it is. There might even be small errors in there that would otherwise have been fixed by peers.

I understand that knowing the author could give more weight to the information of an article...I just don't understand how this is anything worth talking about or worth comparing to wikipedia.

Re:This is so unlike Wikipedia

So instead of watching edit wars and being able to check out multiple opinions you now have to take the whole article as it is. There might even be small errors in there that would otherwise have been fixed by peers.

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:This is so unlike Wikipedia

All they're basically proposing is that you write an article as best as you can and they host it,
If you look at the sample, you'll notice that they're going to allow readers to rate articles with 1-5 stars. They also say "Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results. We are quite experienced with ranking web pages, and we feel confident that we will be up to the challenge." That is very different from just offering free web hosting, which would be a one-way mode of communication from the author (who is possibly a crackpot) to the reader.

giving you a tiny share of the revenue it generates.
Yeah, this is the key question, which they don't answer: how much of the revenue does the author get? If it's less than you'd get by hosting your own content and putting up adsense ads, then I think my motivation for participating would be very low.

So instead of watching edit wars and being able to check out multiple opinions you now have to take the whole article as it is.
In the article, they say they want to build a setup where there are competing articles on the same topic.

There might even be small errors in there that would otherwise have been fixed by peers.
If you look at the sample article, it has a byline, and the author's academic affiliation is given.

I just don't understand how this is anything worth talking about or worth comparing to wikipedia.
The real problem is that the barn-raising stage of wikipedia is over, the quality of wikipedia is no longer getting any better over time, and the structure of wikipedia is inappropriate for its current stage of development. That's why I, like many former hard-core wikipedians, have quit editing. Wikipedia has turned into a giant energy-wasting machine like the one in The Matrix. You have millions of people all over the world, all undoing each other's edits, while most articles remain at the same low level of quality. I'm a physicist, and when I look at a physics article on WP, I don't typically say "that's wrong," I say "that's so poorly written that I don't believe anyone could ever read it and follow what it's trying to explain." You can try till you're blue in the face to improve the quality of the writing on WP, and it just won't work, because your hard work will succumb to random, uncoordinated edits by well-intentioned people.

might be

Wikipedia is getting something of a reputation for being elitist and at times discriminatory without justification. Whatever the truth, when such labels are applied people are usually ripe for alternatives.

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?

Wikipedia is getting something of a reputation for being elitist...

You got that right, remember them purging webcomics [slashdot.org]?

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 would if I were in their shoes.

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.

This could end badly...

Wikipedia is having enough trouble trying to stop people from editing content to cast the groups they represent in a better light; Giving them the opportunity to create their own misleading articles that can make them money through ads as well doesn't sound promising. Add to that the fact that people without agendas who share information on wikis now surely must be doing it for the love of sharing information or the love of the topic its self; ad money will only end up encouraging less passionate people to post whatever pops into their heads just to get a page running for the ad support.

Re:This could end badly...

It doesn't sound very much like Wikipedia.

With an article assigned to a person for revenue-sharing, what about people throwing in their small corrections and elaborations? They're locked out of these small changes that are important to the end-result.

Wikipedia works around a whole mess of people throwing information at it with the expectation that correct information will sift up to the top over time as evidence appears to back up the information against unconfirmed noise. And when contested versions of information in close competition, the uninformed ought to have a reasonable opportunity to examine both and decide for themselves rather than a single viewpoint presenting a single side. The multiple sources of contributions are what distinguish wikipedia from all other encyclopedias. Knol is not really lining up against wikipedia's model, but with the classic encyclopedia model, but just situated online and ad-driven rather than printed and purchase-driven.

If they wanted to compete with wikipedia it seems like they'd get better results by just doing the same thing with a cleaner interface and google's hosting resources. The ad-word hits over time would still be plenty assuming they manage to build up a large enough "network effect"(wiki it;) ).

about.com, not Wikipedia

At first look the model seems to be about.com, which offered information on subjects as presented by named experts, which is pretty much the reverse of how Wikipedia works. As ideas go, it's not a bad one and I can see the potential for the use of trust or reputation to maintain the veracity of information, as I'm sure Google have done. It brings up several other questions of course, such as Google finally becoming a content provider, and how it's going to be managed - even if it is all user maintained the potential for another cabal is always on the horizon.

Attribution is the key

Wikipedia fails for one simple reason; most of the data is without citation and most of the data with citation relies on web links that do not work anymore. The documentation that IS correct has absolutely no attribution and to find out who wrote an article or various portions of it you need to delve into histories or use something like they use to prove that the government is using it for propaganda or companies are removing swathes of information that are disparaging by the IP blocks they're posted from.

Being able to sort information by far better categories (not just an encyclopaedia) and enforcing attribution means the scrupulous among us will be able to publish data on the knowledge base and get the credit for it, and be able to be *congratulated or better yet, corrected* on it.

With Wikipedia, if you don't like what someone wrote, you delete it. You change it. You add insults. Then you can't use any of the data from Wikipedia anywhere else because it's GFDL. The information is *so* free the only place you can read it is ON Wikipedia, or has spidered Wikipedia and presented the data verbatim on another site.. if Google allows authors to select their license themselves (be it a CC variant, GFDL or a true copyright with a restrictive clause) then this will only draw people in.

There is something wrong about trying to free information by putting it under a restrictive, blanket license. Not all content can be licensed the same way. Wikipedia is high maintenance - looking for citations, constant review by editors, vandalism watches, locking, even selecting for the front page..

As for the advertising, even Wikipedia needs to earn it's keep. To be honest I really really object to trying to read an encyclopedia entry and being told that the WikiMedia conference is going to be on a certain date, taking up 1/4 of my screen at the top of the page, or that I need to donate to the cause. Fuck that. I want to turn that damn advert off. I don't care about it. But, it's essential to keep the site going. You can't complain about it, because without impressing it onto people that they need to pay for the upkeep of the service, they won't.

So, how is this any different to advertising using Google down the side? Well, it isn't. Google needs to make money by selling advertising and authors should be given the opportunity to earn money for all the effort they put in, because after all, spending a couple of days writing a 10 page article on something is an action most people would like to be paid for even just a little.

Re:Attribution is the key

John Nash's biography (Beautiful Mind) claims he was homosexual. But later, some claimed it wasn't the case and book is wrong. So which is correct ???

I hate to borrow a phrase from religious fundies, but maybe the correct thing for Wikipedia to do is "teach the controversy".

The entry for John Nash should not read "He was homosexual" or "He was NOT homosexual", but rather "Nash's biography claims he was homosexual [cite provided], but this has been disputed by some [cite provided]."

Or even better, if consensus on the veracity of an item cannot be reached, simply DON'T PUBLISH IT.

Ad revenue for contributors? Bad idea

I can see it now: people will just insert stubs (or copy articles from other sources) for subjects that are likely to be popular search terms, for the sole purpose of reaping the ad revenues.

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).

Brilliant

Sometimes I think that Wikipedia and now Knol are just reinventing the World Wide Web. They're hosting pages that anybody can post and edit. Each page has some information and links to other pages. But they are providing at least one useful service, limiting which pages and changes are visible.

Wikipedia controls changes at the word level. Any nontrivial article is a compilation from many writers, some of which may be feuding over the content. This is like an open source software project where anybody can edit the source and you must rely on some benevolent wizards to keep the whole cohesive.

Knol controls changes at the article level and seems to be more like typical open source projects. Anybody can send changes to the maintainer who decides which make it into the mainstream release. Of course somebody could fork the project, but unless the fork is a real improvement over the original it won't attract attention.

Overall Wikipedia's model is probably faster and Knol's is more stable if Google can keep it organized. Knol would also have the big advantage of actually being citable.

Everyone can

At risk of stating the obvious, this won't get anywhere near as popular as Wikipedia because everyone can't edit any article (thereby keeping the articles up-to-date and reaching decisions by consensus so ensuring accuracy)--although I do suspect that Google will be able to develop a better interface--Wikimedia is in desperate need of developers to work on RFEs.

An on-line encyclopedia model where articles are owned has been tried many times before by the likes of ODP/DMoz spin-off, the Open Encyclopedia Project [open-site.org], and Slashdot spin-off, Everything2 [everything2.com]. In fact, nearly all the online encyclopedias [wikipedia.org] except Wikipedia have some kind of article ownership even if in some cases it isn't absolute (including Wikipedia predecessor, Nupedia, of course, which was abandoned when it was realised how successful the anyone-can-edit model they were trialing was).

All it takes is microtransactions.

Streamline micropayments for the entire humanity and you've won. You've won against Amazon. Wikipedia. PayPal. Pearson Education. And Citygroup.

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?"

> You see that thing on the right of the screenshot? That's an "Ads by Google" box. When I view a page and that
> guy is there, it isn't free anymore.

No, it's free, because you're not paying for it. Free newspapers are free, regardless of the fact that advertisers paid to have their ads inserted. Free parties are free regardless of the fact that someone paid for the records/PA etc. Your `ad based` distinction is meaningless. `The whole world` - that is, other people - try to profit from free stuff too. Is something `free` by your definition (god knows there are enough definitions of Free to keep us going for a while now) only involve benefactors with deep pockets funding a project indefinitely, at a loss? How many of those exist? Even there, you'd hardly be exempt from copyright infringement etc - it just wouldn't happen in an attempt to make a profit, but for kicks. There are no adds on Wikipedia but I've seen plenty of abuse there - lies, fake deaths, stupid pictures inserted into maths pages etc.

Hopefully information from Wikipedia will end up on Know as well as in many other places, so that different approaches to protecting facts and filtering nonsense can be tried.

Re:Picking nits.

meaningless distinction. Give me an example of something you can have at "no cost."

The last breath of air you inhaled? Cost you calories. The last book that some crazy person wrote, had self-published, and shipped to you for free without a single ad in it? You still have to read it, which costs you time (and calories, among other things).

Again - if you really want to go down that absurd path, give me an example of something that you get at no cost to you. Something that fits your definition of "free."

Re:"Free Information Gathering?" -Yes

What is the purpose of your diatribe? It's free for the user. If I need information, I can gather it for free: Whether or not there's ads on the page does not limit the amount of data I can gather, nor does it decrease the amount of money in my wallet.

Re:"Free Information Gathering?" -No

My oh my the stupidity that sometimes lies here. Don't feed the trolls, but sometimes they need it ramming down their throat.

"someone's wallet is definitely losing money when the only thing they were looking for in the first place was information."

YES. THE ADVERTISER IS SPENDING THIS MONEY... except they're generally not 'LOSING MONEY', as the purpose of advertising is to promote your product for less money than you will get back from the increased consumer base and sales as a result of the advertising.

The viewers don't pay. That's the point. I can go to this site once or 10000 times and it will not cost me a penny aside from my usual internet access fees. I DON'T PAY. It is a FREE SERVICE to the end user.

Advertising in -pedias is a contentious issue and I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with it, but for gods sake, stop spreading such bullshit which is entirely false.

More importantly, NOT OPEN

Much more importantly, this is going to be owned by Google. They're highly unlikely to let everyone download their article database in the way that wikipedia does. Publically created information on the scale of wikipedia should not be owned by
private organisations.

Profiling hunny pot waiting for you.

"Two thoughts come to mind" etc...

Wikipedia already exists. Wikis are also open source. Knol is reinventing the wheel to make a proprietary wiki for Goggle to then use to do targeted marketing on each article people look at. They then count the articles people are interested in. They also build up a profile of each and every poster, working out what they are interested in. They most likely will also be able to associate each article viewed, with all google searching from their main site via cookies etc. So they are going to be building up an even greater profile of all users of both google and knol.

So far I'm not seeing a good reason to want to use knol, but I'm seeing many reasons to stay away from knol. Each time I hear the Google "do no harm" PR idea, I'm reminded of the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Google is becoming Big Brother. Yet few people seem to be able to see its slowly happening.

I guess most people fail to see its happening, partly as its so many small steps towards that goal and they also fail to see how such detailed knowledge can be used to give ever more power to the ones with that knowledge. knol isn't going to be just an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. knol is going to be a hunny pot, waiting to profile each thing all of us are interested in.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying it, but as time goes on, I'm sadly becoming more convinced Big Brother is eventually inevitable. Few people can see its happening and no one is going to really stop what companies like Google are doing, as anyone in power wants the power Google is building for itself. They want a part of that power, so they will not stop it. They will do high profile things to make it look like they are controlling and limiting what companies like Google are doing, but in reality, they will not and cannot stop the extent of data mining that's growing year by year. Yet no one in power would really be stupid enough to want to really stop it growing, as its more power for anyone with access to the profiling data.