Last week, Paul Barsch sent me an ABC news article introducing Google’s Knol, its own user-generated encyclopedia. Entitled Google Knol Opens to Public, writer Ashley Phillips claims the “move is widely seen as the Silicon Valley behemoth’s answer to Wikipedia.”
The primary differences between Wikipedia and Knol are that “people who write entries on Google’s encyclopedia are identified and can earn a profit from their articles with ads.”
Here is a quote from the article:
“The key principle behind Knol is authorship. Every knol will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content,” the company wrote on its blog Wednesday. “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.
“Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it,” the company wrote on its blog in December. “We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of Web content.”
Frankly, I am not surprised that Google entered launched the site. It is apparent from anyone watching that Google, among others, wants to be all things Internet, including search and content. As we watch that battle emerge between Microsoft, Yahoo and Google, I am more interested in the answer to my question: Do We Want or Need Another Wikipedia?
In fact, let me take this one step further. Did we want or need Wikipedia? And how does paying writers using views at the criteria affect the writing? Does doing so tempt some to use hyperbole and unnecessary or unfounded provocation and controversy to up their numbers?
Now, this is where I earn my reputation as a contrarian and expect to learn a great deal from you. I don’t use Wikipedia. And on the few occasions when I have, my research in terms of time was doubled, even tripled, because I don’t see Wikipedia as a reliable source. I prefer my research to include not only writers (who come with agendas and biases, and I include myself here), but to also be backed up by professional editors and fact checkers. Furthermore, I want to know what makes the writer qualified to submit what I consider research-level content. Who is this person? What are their specific topical qualifications? And where can I learn more about him or her (a link or two)?
Okay, so where am I wrong (or right) here? Wikipedia and Knol claim to provide information we can quote. Would you (have you) done so without fact checking the info yourself? How do you, or would you, use these sites? Do such sites help or hurt the reputation and perception of online media, including social media?
Google got into this space because odds are that for any common search term you do, the top 10 will contain a Wikipedia reference. Why send the shopper elsewhere? The longer they’re in the store, the more likely they are to buy.
Part of the way that PageRank works is by the number of other web sites pointing to that page. Wikipedia winds up in the top 10 because other people believe its content and give it credibility by pointing to it.
Given the state of skepticism regarding “sources” (see the ever-declining value of newspaper sites these days), we (all of us) tend to believe each other, policing and correcting each other, more than those blessed with “official” credentials, who don’t care whatsoever about any expertise we might lend. The wisdom of the crowd, trust networks, and all that.
You ask, “Do such sites help or hurt the reputation and perception of online media?”
Apples and oranges. They have nothing to do with each. It’s legacy vs. disruptive innovator. Or priest vs. peasants. Except that the peasants, collectively, are pretty darned smart.
Lewis, great points. In the world of fast consuming information, the reliability of the source is becoming more and more important. At least for me.
Yet I’m getting a feeling that somehow the system of credibility will raise by itself. Like at common media – you know which TV stations you trust. Also, anyone can write a book, yet you will trust those at “your” trusted publisher, from the authors you know and trust.
So any “pedia” will most probably get its own place in the net?
As for the knol business idea, I’m wondering what are they waiting for (or they are not) on YouTube? I had an idea long time ago, to make Youtube kind of a service with a difference that each author would get paid from the ads that are presented/clicked in their video page… hmm… can you imagine how much big sports club (like Real Madrid) would earn from videos titled “behind the scene with Ronaldinho”?
I was calculating once that this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGvGWY1FDs
would earn some 3.500 € till now.
And this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsO6D1rwrKc
Some… 25.000€? Pesimistic figure.
So knol authors – on long term – could be the best authors… it’s the question of money?
Enough of me.
Hi Lewis, thanks for the plug at the top of your post!
For me at least, KNOL represents a departure from Wikipedia in that entries are an author’s own and cannot be edited or commented upon unless the author so chooses. So it’s wisdom of one, or of the crowds depending on what the author specifies.
Second point, since entries are not homogenized with multiple writers, viewers can look up the author’s expertise and judge for themselves whether the person is a credible source –or not!
Thanks Brett. Good points. I disagree that Wikipedia and online media are different. Wikipedia is online media, and when their content is inaccurate, I believe it hurts the credibility of other online media.
That’s just me. Then again, I prefer the wisdom of those trained in an art or science to the wisdom of crowds.
Paul,
Yes, I like the idea that the author’s credentials are available. Gives the read more information to access the content’s credibility. Thanks Paul.
Paul,
Yes, I like the idea that the author’s credentials are available. Gives the reader more information to access the content’s credibility. Thanks Paul.
Like you, Lewis, I don’t use Wikipedia as a “research” tool in my business. Agreed: some of it is simply not credible. I would not go to Knol for the same reason since anyone and everyone can contribute to it as an author. Sure, the parties who put the information on the site can be researched. But I prefer to use that time to find experts on specific subjects online, evaluate them by their own articles and writings and contact them directly. Trust is everything when conducting research, isn’t it?
“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.” What if these knols offer widely different information or POVs on a particular topic? Which author’s do we believe? I’m not sure I’d use this as a resource, Lewis. . .
Hey Lewis,
I think the majority of Wikipedia users don’t care either way whether the writers are qualified or not. I think Wikipedia caters mostly to casual searchers – people with a question, looking for an answer. Wikipedia ranks well for almost every general keyword a person could search for.
Wikipedia isn’t a quotable resource and I don’t think people use it in that way. You go to Wikipedia to answer a quick question, to introduce you to a subject, to find more credible resources (at the bottom of each article).
Even with it’s “identified authors” Knol seems like a waste of Google’s money. A name and bio do not make a credible source. And if you click around Knol, quite a few authors don’t have bios at all. I guess they aren’t required?
Google created Knol with the idea that people wanted a credible Wikipedia. People that care about credibility use Britannica, Encarta, news sites, online databases, etc.
Ted and Elaine,
Thank you for your comments. I admit, I am in your camps. Just old-school, I guess, but I prefer to get my research information (and my news) from scholars and those trained to share information.
Tanya,
Thank you for sharing your carefully thought-out and constructed ideas. It’s obvious that you gave this topic some thought. I appreciate that.
I have read articles about how students are messing up their facts in their papers partly because of material they get from Wikipedia.
When someone does research online they need to know the source is credible. With Knol you will know.
Neil, a colleague of mine is a former university lecturer and shares stories of manipulating websites which students would use for research as part of a greater lesson in validating the information found on the web. Sources like Wikipedia exacerbate the need for such diligence.
That’s not, however, to say there’s no value to Wikipedia. I think Tanya’s points echo mine pretty closely.
I think my concern with Knol is what it is adding to the way knowledge is shared? Anyone can write on a topic and a topic can have multiple entries. Aside from having everything collected in one DB, how is this different from Google’s Scholar Search?
Wikipedia provides one answer that we can presume to be more or less correct. Knol still forces me to wade through the different opinions to find a best answer for my needs. It’s their basic search engine, repackaged and rebranded.
Well, Peder, I was thinking that if one saw that an expert wrote on a topic that would have more gravitas than your standard Wikipedia article.
If that is not, in fact, what Knol is going to do effectively then it is of marginal value.
If they can figure out a way to build a highly credible source of information, then they have something useful. If not, then it is just a “me too” Wikipedia.
We were established in 2002,with more than 5years development,we have now turned a workshop into a big wholesaler and retailer in the southeast of china !We located in Guangzhou city in Guangdong province,our hometown is famous for making shoes clothes and bags,and we have established a long term and closed cooperation with many factories.