Google Knol, competition for Wikipedia
Google, in a challenge to Wikipedia, has created a user-generated online encyclopedia called Knol that identifies its writers instead of keeping them anonymous. “Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling Knol, which stands for a unit of knowledge,” the company wrote on its blog. “Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it.” Although it’s already drawing comparisons to the best-known user-generated Web encyclopedia Wikipedia, Knol is different in a few key ways. First, unlike Wikipedia, authors of articles on Google’s site are highlighted, not hidden. Similarly, articles on Knol aren’t collaborative; they are written by just a single author.
Users of the site, which is in beta-testing and invitation only, can still participate by ranking the usefulness of entries, adding comments and asking questions. Google will not serve as an editor and expects several knols on each topic. But can Knol unseat current online leader Wikipedia? Owned by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia was founded in January 2001. It has more than 8.2 million articles in more than 200 languages, including more than 2 million in English. Knol’s respect for authorship will be a huge boon for Google and differentiate it from competitors like Wikipedia and Squidoo, Saffo said. In addition to it’s “star-making” potential, Knol has an added incentive — it allows its authors to make money from their writing. I guess students all over the world will be happy to use a new source for their essays…
Source: ABC NewsÂ
Comments(24)
Google FTW !
Google think that they can take over whatever they want. They shouldn’t do that.
Yeah, it was cute in the beginning, when Google was sort of the “underdog”, but now it’s just creepy. What’s next, Google Windows? Not that I would mind or anything, any alternatives to Microsoft’s stuff should provide a quick jolt to the entire market, and hopefully lead to new stimulating ideas… But still, I’m somewhat concerned.
I agree with you on that Bram… First youtube and all. They’ve got the hotmail counterpart gmail, online officeshizzle, lets not forget gearth and now they’re planning on a wiki-clone? Google is probably the most valuable coorperation in the world, I guess the next step will be their own OS and not long after world domination. Wikipedia ftw! I’ve always used it and theirs no need for google to get their own other than $$$. Pity
Oh and besides… what kinda lazy name is ‘knol’?
It sounds like a zoo-bear name or some.
They are trying to be he next Microsoft. Be careful Google, people might sue you for not having anything other than Google on the internet to initially look at.
Google needs to stop and back off, before they become noticeably worse than Micro$oft…
i like wikipedia either way
the funny thing that i found wiki through google…
wikipedia owns everything.Plus it is non-profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol
With opinions from Wales and Sanger.
isn’t one of the cool things about wiki to be collaborative and anonymous?
@7
yup…
I completely agree with kebrus. with non collaborative work, what is going to keep the writing unbiased? Any slager with an idea is gonna use it as their own personal forum, to push their own ideas on a gullable public.
Only ignorant fools can believe Wikipedia is unbiased. First off, Wikipedia’s so-called open collaboration is actually tightly controlled by an executive committee of unnamed members (there was just an internal dispute that blew its cover as a secret – as I recall, the head of Wikipedia was trying to manipulate the committe discussions by excluding those he disagreed with).
Sure, there are lots of valid, or mostly valid, pieces there and many of us use it as a quick reference, hopefully among others. But then there are the many entries that are manipulated by the gov’t, corporations, or others with an axe to grind, some of them not particularly knowledgeable on the subject. Then there is the just plain false information provided as a joke or in retribution for a real or imagined grief. Entries that are hard to correct. Sometimes, those contributions provide the kind of false information or rumor that get people in trouble with the gov’t, police and employers, get people falsely accused of terrorism, etc. And all of it with unnamed sources. All of these sorts of things really have happened and can be checked out by anyone interested.
Knowledge is not democratic. Some people have expertise in certain areas, some don’t. Everyone has biases, with some having them more in check than others. Knowing who’s doing the writing allows readers to check out the source and evaluate accordingly.
I would rather use Wikipedia, as the author cannot state their personal ideas on an article, as they can on Knol. Sure Wikipedia has its faults, as would any encyclopaedia that allows any one to edit it but, thanks to many good members, much of the vandalism and content that is not from a neutral point of view is quickly removed.
THis is going to fail eventually. Give it time and it will be abandoned.
look for google auctions soon, they will take over everything.
Only a smelly Doosh would use the word ignorant fool, so just get over yourself. No one said that wiki is unbiased. the only thing that was inferred was that Knol would have more biased references. anyone who wants to look smart is gonna try to take advantage, especially since their pictures would be posted. I can only expect to see an article from romat soon enough. Can’t wait to read your next long winded comeback rotard.
You thought they would of gone for the obvious name, Gnoledge really…
Ya know what, all you haters? I applaud Google. They are trying to do as much stuff giving some of the best support there is. Besides, it doesnt matter who does something, if that something is a good idea, then good for them. If it is stupid, then let it fail. Stop being Stalin wannabe’s…stupid communists…
Anywho, I do think the author thing is a somewhat good idea, except how do they determine who can write a knol and who cant? Anybody can get a degree in something nowadays…If the solution to this problem is to have as many knols for each subject as there are people who want to write them, that is just awful. There would be millions of articles on well-known subjects! Just think, how many articles do you think would be posted for “Auto parts” or “How to Build a Computer”! Everybody and their grandmother knows this kind of stuff! Hmm…
Personally i don’t see anything wrong with knol wikipedia is a very useful website and contains hugh amounts of information but unfortunatly without an authors name attached to the source document you can’t possibly use wiki for reference within an essay or research project.
Knol will offer this author status and undoubtidly help students all over the world, the academic world is becoming more and more iternet lead for students and this could possibly be another step forward in the right direction.
google wants to own the internet.. they buy developed webistes eg. doubleclick .. and they compete with free non profit organisations wen they got all the money in the world..
If Google can bring it off successfully, it’s not Wikipedia that is threatened but the Brittainicas and other “paper” encyclopedia on the Web that will be challenged.
However, even though the organization they bought to bring Knol into existence will carry the Knol workload, there is a read serious drawback for Google, and that is its dilution form its much more important and serious services whick only Google can perform. The marginal societal — or even Google — benefits of Knols over near and far competators to Wikipedia are not sufficient to warrant the diversion of resourcesd for areas of MUCH greater benefit: Google base, which need MUCH more marketing and development!