knol
main entry: knol
pronunciation: \ˈnōl\
function: noun
etymology: 12/13/2007 Udi Manber in Encouraging People to Contribute Knowledge, “Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling ‘knol’…”definition: A unit of knowledge.
By the end of 2008, the above definition might seem silly. Should the good people over at Google (yes, even though it has become trendy in some circles to lambaste, criticize, or at least remain skeptical about them and/or their motives, I still believe the people at Google are good and are doing good things for online information retrieval/evaluation/dissemination) pay as much attention to this project as they have to their other ones (web-based email, online mapping, office productivity, video sharing, need i go on?), knol should be firmly planted in our collective vocabulary.
So, what is a knol and what is the knol project? If you’d like it straight from the horse’s mouth, visit the link provided above (in the etymology portion of the definition I’ve created for the term knol). If you’d like my take, read on:
Wikipedia took the traditional notion of an encyclopedia and adequately adapted it for the online environment. This, of course, means that they didn’t simply compose an online version of a print encyclopedia. Instead, they created a system that realized the potential of the Web: an environment well-suited to a read/write culture. Wikipedia, though, has not been without its critics and the criticisms often leveled at Wikipedia seem to have been, at least in part, the impetus for the Google knols project (that and maybe the fact that in almost any simple Google search, a Wikipedia entry is generally within the first five entries on the first search engine results page (SERP)). So, what are these criticisms? Well, from the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia:
Critics have questioned Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature.[8] The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[9] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies;[10] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[12][13]
Alright, well, what will Google be doing differently? Check out the sample knol offered by the Google team (click on the pic to be redirected to the actual screenshot provided by Google…then come back and read more):
The first and most obvious difference between this and a Wikipedia entry is the knol’s focus on the author. This change addresses the whole consensus over credentials problem of Wikipedia. Also, only the author of a knol can edit his or her knol, which addresses any potential vandalism problems. These changes from Wikipedia’s consensus approach are great, but what’s even greater is that the good people over at Google have not simply thrown away all of the benefits of the read/write web in their attempt to allow readers the ability to evaluate the author’s credentials when weighing the reliability of the information they are reading. If you look closely, you’ll notice that readers can rate knols, they can provide suggestions to the author for revisions or additions, and they can create competing knols on the same topic. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ve been an ardent supporter of Wikipedia…I think it’s an extremely good source of basic, encyclopedic information. This knols approach, though, just might alleviate the reservations I have about the Wikipedia approach.
There is so much more on this that I want to write (especially about problems I already see with the way Google plans to implement their knols)…and will…but not here and not now.
