Knowledge Sharing, Not Like Preschool
Google just launched "Knol" -- as in knowledge -- their long-discussed, potential Wikipedia competitor. Google has previously tried applications with similar features but technology has progressed in ways that may improve Knol's chances over other "flops" like "Answers". A main difference between Knol and Wikipedia, and one that Google infers makes Knol special is that each "authoritative article" will be written by someone with knowledge. First the somebodies were "experts", but apparently now anybody can simply verify who they are and write a "knol", sharing their knowledge, opinions, whatever. Then the author can choose to allow others to edit or not. If not, then people are left simply comment.
This streamlines control for Knol contributors, compared to Wikipedia, but transfers messiness to the reader. Content creation will be easier for contributors, and much harder for a general reader searching for a concise framing of issues around a topic, especially if there's disagreement. Interactive mechanisms in Wikipedia, by contrast, force people with disparate views to work together and collaborate on articles. Look for instance at the entry and discussion page for the Wikipedia entry for String Theory, an interesting example of Wikipedia's transparent and deliberate process.
Wikipedia's different approach forces collaboration and debate amongst those who care - whether or not they have particular academic pedigree. This lowers the bar to authors inclined to do research. "Experts" can always edit later. When everyone's collaborating there's may be no identified expert, but that doesn't mean expert information isn't produced.
Knol also makes a strange move in many articles of returning to pre-World-Wide-Web footnotes rather than in-text links, which for some reason reminds us of Michael Crichton's "Footnotes are real." statement at the beginning of "State of Fear". Ideally (in my opinion) readers should be able to access and judge "footnotes" easily and independently to verify the source, context and appropriateness to the argument. Unlinkable footnotes from an antiquated time before the Internet frustrates this inquiry. Wikipedia links within the text to other Wikipedia articles (sometimes helpful, sometimes annoying) then includes linkable footnotes to outside sources at the bottom of the page.
Knol also suffers from inconsistent presentation. At this point using Wikipedia is like landing in a foreign country with a Lonely Planet or a Rough Guide, whereas Knol is like arriving with a sheath of unbound scrolls somebody dug out of their attic and passed to you on the plane. Sure you know who penned it on account of the embossed paper, but there's no order, no index, and no familiar "Dangers and Annoyances" section.
When Everyone is an Expert
Will experts make information better? There's a full range of opinions about Wikipedia's accuracy, with the general conclusion being that it's pretty good, even when compared with commercial offerings like Britannica. Not to say Wikipedia is perfect. I followed their coverage of certain chemicals like bisphenol-A for years without ever linking to the article, because the information wasn't consistently accurate, errors were sporadically introduced, and the page frequently included industry marketing. But the same drawback applies to Sourcewatch and other wikis. It's hard to see how Knol will resolve this.
Reliance on experts and credentials harmonizes well with a "Googly" worldview, although Google has backed off its original "expert" theme and now it say Knol can replace blogging. Or any web page? Everyone's an expert! We suspect that Knol will find it hard to avoid the irksome pollution of the uninformed, yet opinionated crowd that plagues Yahoo! answers. The Yahoo! attempt at a crowd-sourcing approach doesn't work because it's a larger proportion of relatively uninformed readers determine an answer's rating.
At this stage it appears Google will attempt to work around this potential morass via some kind of ranking mechanism tied to credentials, but it's unclear how this will play out. Google's offer of payment infers that there will be some financial reward. If that doesn't pan out will real "experts" choose to use their time seeing patients for a few hundred dollars an hour instead of Adcents?
In Wikipedia, no one is a verified expert, in Knol everyone is a verified expert. Which room would you rather be in?
Grabbing at The Gold Ring: The Third Page
Google said last December: "We believe that many do not share that knowledge today simply because it is not easy enough to do that." Really? You don't need to wade too far into the web to see that there's not exactly a barrier to entry.
It's no secret why Google would consider launching a competitor to Wikipedia. It's safe to say that Knol isn't just retaliation for Wikia's recently launched open source search engine (Steve Ballmer's not running the show). Wikipedia is a huge site with no advertising revenue for Google. Google is the main driver of traffic to Wikipedia. Wikipedia ranked ( #3 of outbound referrals from Google in 2007. Wikipedia doesn't run ads, so all clicks from Google to Wikipedia bring nothing back to Google.
Regardless of the stated intent: sending more researchers to Knol will bring guaranteed revenue to Google, compared with guaranteed zero revenue from a similar referral to Wikipedia. It must have been a painful reality all these years for Google to have been sending away such a large proportion of its searchers to a non-revenue generating website like Wikipedia. (Next Craigslist?).
But Knol seems as much a competitor to Wikipedia as the Mayo Clinic site and many other sites, sort of like Google's standalone web. Similarly, stores like REI or Whole Foods or Walgreens, etc., that start out selling other product brands, come around to calculate that they can make more money branding their own products. Then there's Blackbird, Microsoft's standalone web aborted when browser technology made corralling users to your site seem silly.
Besides signaling quality with proxies such as "expert" status and footnotes, it's unclear that Google's really aiming for quality. There's no motivation for Google to limit the number of authors, or pages -- in fact more pages, more money.The more hemorrhoid experts there are the more "100% Cure Hemorrhoids" ads Google can sell. Is Google really motivated to ridding the web of Wikipedia's "anal retentive authors" who get waylaid asserting that Wikipedia "is not some shock website", disagreeing with those who insist that the "disgusting" photos of hemorrhoids need to be included on behalf of need-to-no medical students?
Google warns against using Knol for advertising, but how does Google intend to take the commercial out of capitalism? If one writes an article on the dangers of silicone breast implants, as we found out, Google serves up "NYC MD, Dr. Slice and Stuff, Millions of Implants Every Week, 212-...Call Today!!". How will Knol change this? There's a tremendous amount of content that doesn't have an easy target product. Moreover how will a reader decide whether a medical doctor or a salesman selling water filtration devices is being "authoritative" or writing an infomercial? What will differentiate Knol? Perhaps all the different opinions can be gathered on a Google metapage, then a reader can click through all the pages to find what suits him. Click; ads, click; ads, click; ads, click; ads.
Content is King
The big Internet slogan used to be "Content is King". Before the effective advertising that Google introduced though, it was an empty, not royal, premise. Search became the focus, but clearly the "third page", as some call it, is still the prize. (The first page being the web query page, the second, the results page, and the third the clicked destination page.) Combining infinite pages with Google's control of search presents an ideal opportunity for a publicly traded growth-hungry advertising+search company. Google can choose to tinker the search algorithm to favor it's own pages and shepherd searchers to Knol content, which some suspect it's already doing.
Thin content is the immediate obstacle for Knol, but there's a simple economic answer. Google believes that sharing ad revenue with content creators will help jumpstart Knol's repository and motivate Wikipedia authors to move to Knol. How? At one end of the spectrum is probably some archetypal Wikipedia contributor who might not be motivated by money, and there will be people honored by the opportunity (random academics and doctors) or who see it as a way of advertising their practice. However I suspect that many profiteers will also engage in some fast and furious cut and paste knowledge transfer from Wikipedia to Knol pages. Given the permissive Wikipedia licensing scheme, such acts will likely be legal and permissible. Although of dubious integrity, they'll bring economic benefit to Google, an outcome I'm sure Google anticipates. Today, for Google, this natural business move, hopefully Knol won't go the way of Orkut.
And about the pronunciation? Knol is apparently not pronounced like "knoll", although knoll is a synonym for "mound", and the original definition for "mound" (archaic), was "to enclose or fortify with a fence or a ridge of earth." As apropos as that may seem, knol is apparently pronounced "knowl-", rhymes with wall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Acronym Required often links to Wikipedia.
Acronym Required previously wrote on the Britannica, Wikipedia dispute in Who Controls Information"
