View source for Knol

'''= Google's proposed alternative to the [[Wikipedia]], based on individually signed articles.'''

URL = http://knol.google.com/

=Definition=

Nicholas Carr:

"The big distinction with Wikipedia is that Knol relies on individual authors rather than "the crowd." Each article, or "knol," will be signed and owned by the person who writes it, and articles on the same subject will compete with one another for viewer's eyes. In contrast, Wikipedia builds a single version of each article in a communal way with many edits by anonymous contributors."
(http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/12/google_knol_tak.php)


=Description=

Udi Manber [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html]:

"The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. Books have authors' names right on the cover, news articles have bylines, scientific articles always have authors -- but somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors names highlighted. We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content. At the heart, a knol is just a web page; we use the word "knol" as the name of the project and as an instance of an article interchangeably. It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page. Google will provide easy-to-use tools for writing, editing, and so on, and it will provide free hosting of the content. Writers only need to write; we'll do the rest.

A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read. The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions. Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content. All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors. We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.

Knols will include strong community tools. People will be able to submit comments, questions, edits, additional content, and so on. Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it. Knols will also include references and links to additional information. At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
(http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html)


=Characteristics=

"The key principle behind Knol is authorship. Every knol will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content. It's their knol, their voice, their opinion. We expect that there will be multiple knols on the same subject, and we think that is good.

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!

Knols include strong community tools which allow for many modes of interaction between readers and authors. People can submit comments, rate, or write a review of a knol. At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads from our AdSense program. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with a revenue share from the proceeds of those ad placements."
(http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/knol-is-open-to-everyone.html)

=Discussion=

==Stowe Boyd against Wikipedia's "borg" mechanism==

"The lack of individual authority in Wikipedia, and the corresponding tyranny of the bureaucratic infighting around what is and is not true, is a problem that Google wants to counter in a Googlesque way: the most authorative authors of knols -- the articles that will comprise the knol system -- will get compensated by advertising revenue. Authority will be directly translated into cash, in a nearly frictionless knowledge marketplace, in the Google worldview, it seems.

Aside from implicitly challenging the primacy of the Wikipedia approach to amassing all the world's knowledge, Google has shot a fire arrow directly into the dreams of offerings like Squidoo and Mahalo, which attempt -- without Google's stature and search dominance -- to attract authors and indexers to make sense of the world for a fee, as well. But if you are going to write that authoritative post on social software or ancient Egyptian pornography, where do you think you'll get more traffic?

A second aspect of this announcement is the Google notion of "community tools", which are of the sort that support individual voice: comments, reviews, ratings. Not the 'surrender to the borg' tools of Wikipedia, where everyone can argue behind the scenes about what should or should not be included in the entry on Pork Bellies, but those arguments are not on the page, directly, and the process -- and its cadre of editors -- hold sway over the eventual content.

So Google is attempting to rejigger the fabric of the Web, and -- depending on your view -- to either correct a fundamental error in how knowledge is collected, found, evaluated, and distributed, or to undermine the encyclopedianist vision of Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia minions.

The jury is out, but I hold in the social media vision best embodied by the blogosphere, where individual voices meet in a community framed by open discourse and open disagreement, not back-room politicking leading to a consensus realized in a Wikipedia entry.

Prior to Google stepping forward, no one with any real oomph has tried to challenge the Wikipedia orthodoxy.

Not that my participation will make a whit of difference, but I haven't spent any time crafting paragraphs in Wikipedia. However, I would certainly be interested in writing a few knols, that's for sure. And clearly, for knol to take off, a whole lot of people will have to feel the same."
(http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2007/12/google-attacks.html)


==Tim Bray on Knol's appeal to individual experts==

"I know exactly who Knol will appeal to. People like me. Frustrated editors. People who’ve enjoyed participating but find that they’re doing it less. 

When first got interested in Wikipedia, I used to spend the occasional evening just following the "random article" link and cleaning things up; and also doing spot quality improvement when I looked something up and saw flaws or breakage. I still do a bit of that.

Also, I took responsibility for maintenance of a few articles where I had expertise: Vancouver, T.E. Lawrence, Audiophile. And, before I found out that you’re not supposed to edit your employer, Sun Microsystems.

I don’t really do that any more, for two reasons. The first is that, as with being a serious gamer, being a Wikipedian is increasingly time-consuming. There is a forest of acronyms, and there are all these macros you can slap on pages to indicate problems, and they have subtle cultural implications that I don’t really understand. For example, as I write this, T.E. Lawrence has a badge at the top saying there’s a neutrality dispute. So I went and looked at the (immense, huge, disorganized) Talk page and couldn’t figure out who was disputing what. But I’m no longer confident enough of Wikipedia culture to just delete the stupid thing.

Second, there are irritants. People who know less than I about one of “my” subjects would come along and splash in stupidly-erroneous material, and people who write less well than I would uglify formerly-clear sentences. If I were willing to engage them on the Discussion page and do the dance, I could eventually end up with a good result, but it was kind of discouraging and very time-consuming.

If I were twenty years younger, with more time and general enthusiasm, it probably wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, I consider myself thicker-skinned than average, so when someone I consider an intellectual lightweight says that I misunderstand the Versailles Conference or phono cartridges, in a rude tone, I don’t let it get me down. But there are people in the world, in particular people who’ve put in the time to grow expertise, who are going to stomp off in a temper."
(http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/12/14/Knol)


==Knol vs. Wikipedia==

Marc Fawzi:

"If you look at the way Knol is structured, every topic can have
multiple entry by multiple authors. The version linked to the most
rises to the top in Google search. I believe that is a very liberal
model of dealing with the issue. Why let some corrupt Wikipedia admin
or Founder dictate all human knowledge? Why not let the users dictate
that by linking to the version they like and by doing so making it
more popular without eliminating/deleting less popular versions (of
any given topic.) Where Google goes wrong is in their misunderstanding
of why people contribute so much to Wikipedia's entries. The reason
people do it is not money but to be part of a great moral experiment.
So by Google having an incentive (to pay authors from ad revenue for
their given entry) they are actually creating a counter incentive
because people who have brains have principles too so they wouldn't do
it for pennies. The whole driver for Wikipedia is to be part of a
great moral experiment. Sadly, that experiment is failing behind the
curtain. People who support Wikipedia's governance and ignore the
problems already exposed (such as the slashdot link above) are on one
side of the debate and all those unhappy with corruption and
incompetence are on the other side. Getting the two parties to meet
half way is important but not essential to the task of building a
better pedia, using a more liberated structure that bans deletions and
bans "banning" of users but still maintains quality through use of a
PageRank like scheme.

In fact, if Google was smart they would setup a Foundation and
separate that from their business and spin off Knol to that foundation
then remove the silly ad revenue incentive and let people have a go at
building a better pedia."
(via email, February 2009)


[[Category:Resources]]