Tech | July 23, 2008 | 34 comments

Google launches Knol as rival to Wikipedia

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/23/dlgoogle123.xml

Image
goldenways
Google has launched an online encyclopaedia to take on Wikipedia. Knol, which stands for unit of knowledge, allows internet users to write articles on their own areas of expertise. The world's largest search engine is hoping that "knols" will be written on every conceivable topic ranging from gardening and pottery to Byzantine art and neo-classical literature.

The free service will inevitably draw comparisons with Wikipedia but Google says it differs from it in many ways. Unlike Wikipedia, which allows visitors to edit its pages, people will not be able to make changes or contribute to a person's knol without their permission.

Knols written on the same subject will also remain separate and compete for the attention of visitors, who will be able to give online feedback. Pictures of authors will also be displayed on their knol web pages. Udi Manber, Google's vice president of engineering, said: "We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content. 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."

Contributors will be able to make money from the service by allowing adverts which relate to their articles to appear on their pages.

Juergen Galler, Google's director of product management said: "The internet is huge, but still a lot of expert knowledge remains untapped. Knol provides a way for people to share their expertise with others - and get credit for their contribution."

The service is part of a growing drive by Google to expand beyond simple search and into other areas such as desk top publishing and mobile phones.

But taking on Wikipedia is no mean feat. With 116 million global users a month - a third of the internet population - it consistently ranks among the most visited websites in the world.

Anyone wanting to write a knol should go to knol.google.com
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Tech
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Tech,  Internet,  5 more
  3.     
    |

34 comments // Google launches Knol as rival to Wikipedia

  • saverio
    • 0
      saverio  

    • I think that "knol" is a reference to stigmergy, the variety of stimuli through which social insects interact to build nests.

      Just a guess.

      You might want to read this seminal article by Joe Gregorio. He finds a very interesting metaphor for Web 2.0 in insect colonies.

    • 3 years ago
  • purplefox
  • donkeyfly69
  • donkeyfly69
    • 0
      donkeyfly69  
    • Image

    • from the encyclopedia dramatica:

      "Wikipedia is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia. The goal is to try to insert misinformation that is randomly assigned at signup, while preventing any contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation will generally form "guilds" in order to aid one another."

    • 3 years ago
  • constantdisregard
  • RudyRudell
  • Ayahuasca2012
  • cbritain
    • 0
      cbritain  

    • Indeed. A little competition never hurt, right? Hopefully this move will be incentive for Wikipedia to fix their flaws and maybe even an opportunity to prove that they can be taken as a credible source.

    • 3 years ago
  • passjay
  • JohnnyT426
  • Bovey
    • 0
      Bovey  

    • I think it's an interesting idea, and I am curious to see how it evolves. Instead of having many people editing the same article on a particular topic, it seems that we will end up with many distinct articles from different authors on the same topic. It seems to me that the ultimate usefulness of Knols will come down to the users ability to sift through the multiple knols on the same topic, and separate the good information from the bad.

      When Stephen Colbert writes a knol on African Elephants that triples their population, and directs "the Nation" to endorse it, how will that be handled?

    • 3 years ago
  • bluestranger
  • jay_ct
    • 0
      jay_ct  
    • Image

    • More free information, yeah what a crappy idea.
      Encyclopedia Britannica may start offering free content as well.

      Ever do a search for something and get squat?
      If someone else is willing to help fill in the gaps and offer another information resource for free, how is that a bad thing?

    • 3 years ago
  • constantdisregard
    • 0
      constantdisregard  

    • Wikipedia is a far from perfect platform and leaves no room for expert opinions. How can anyone believe that 10 amateurs could have a better aggregated opinion than 2 or 3 experts?

      The whole "open-source encyclopedia" is quite a nice notion as far as getting as much information as possible, but Wikipedia is too easily manipulated and susceptible to abuse from vested interests.

      I think this move by Google should be welcomed and if you're a fan of the Wikipedia way of doing things then you should be incapable of standing against somebody offering an alternative approach.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • constantdisregard:

      It's easy to stake this sort of claim because anyone thinking about the way it works would readily agree because it sounds so logical. But where's the proof to back what you say? What has it botched so badly that you have this idea of it?

      There must be something.....no matter how right you might be about how it should work doesn't mean it is until you show it actually happening as you suggest.

    • 3 years ago
  • constantdisregard
    • 0
      constantdisregard  
    • constantdisregard:

      Okay here's one example:

      "Dr. William Connolley, a climate modeler at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge and an expert on global warming with many professional publications to his credit, recently went head-to-head with a particularly aggressive Wikipedia editor over the site's global warming entry, when, after trying to correct inaccuracies he noticed in the entry, he was accused of 'strongly pushing his POV [point of view] with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own.'

      Connolley, who was pushing no POV other than that of factual accuracy, was put on editorial parole by Wikipedia, and was limited to making one entry a day. When he challenged the case, the Wikipedia arbitration committee gave no weight to his expertise, treating Connelley, an international expert on global warming, with the same degerence and level of credibility as his anonymous foe - who, for all anyone knew, could have been a penguin in the pay of ExxonMobil."

      "The Cult of the Amateur" by Andrew Keen, p43

    • 3 years ago
  • Juas
    • 0
      Juas  

    • This a stupid move by Google.
      Wikipedia is extremely famous and has large quantities of people checking on every subject.

      What Knoll is doing is what microsoft does to open-source.

    • 3 years ago
  • saverio
  • J_Jammer
  • Juas
    • 0
      Juas  
    • saverio:

      Wikipedia is filled with resources and quotes.
      Its people like you, powered by the media, who tend to discredit the effort of thousands of people.

      Go check the bottom of the page of every wikipedia page you can find: There will always be a quote from somewhere. If for some reason, there isnt, It will clearly say so at the top of the page.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • ....Wikipedia is one of those cool things that really doesn't need a rival. It just works. I think this idea is flawed and down by other websites. Google should just stop and be Google and not take over what other people are doing fine without them.

    • 3 years ago
  • constantdisregard
    • 0
      constantdisregard  

    • I definitely think that intorducing some measure of author accountability is a good idea. Now we just need to find a way to encourage people to only contribute for something that they actually have some area of expertise in.

    • 3 years ago
  • joshuaheller
    • 0
      joshuaheller  

    • The revolutionary thing about wikipedia, is its truly democratic nature. Anybody can edit anything, anonymously, uncredited for the sake of knowledge, not acclaim.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • nkovach
  • J_Jammer
  • arghENMY
  • saverio
    • 0
      saverio  

    • I think Knol combines the spirit of Wikipedia with the reliability of traditional encyclopaedias. The fact that every article is authored is a significant improvement and attacks its competitor's weakest point.

      This is the reason why the era of Wikipedia ends here.
      Mark my words.

    • 3 years ago
  • clayjj05
  • Crenshaw_Brothers
    • 0
      Crenshaw_Brothers  

    • this is going to keep happeining now that the internet is expanding and companies start firhgting and buying each other out but honestly name the thing "Knol" ????

    • 3 years ago
  • jimenagamio
  • kenandweezy
    • 0
      kenandweezy  

    • somewhat agood idea,but ads?I know,ya gotta make a buck.how about links to adverts? Then we would have more space for info and feedback

    • 3 years ago
  • knightlynight200
    • 0
      knightlynight200  

    • cool, maybe knol will have more topics than wikipedia, since people cant changed another persons page, but couldnt it become like a myspace, if you could write about any topic, the only difference is that you wont have any friends and you cant leave comments

    • 3 years ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos