On the 23rd of July, Google announced the release of a beta-version of ‘knol’ a new knowledge source, which according to wikipedia, its main competitor, “aims to include user-written articles on topics ranging from ‘scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions’.
One of the key differences with the knol model is authorship. Each knol has a unique author (or group of authors). There may be multiple entries on the same topic (unlike wikipedia). Anyone may contribute to a knol, but their contribution is moderated by the author, who has ultimate control over the post. Interestingly, Google has obtained the license so that knol writers may select a cartoon from the New Yorker cartoon archives to illustrate their posts. Authors may also earn money from their knols through Google’s adsense system. This is another significant difference to wikipedia, which does not include advertisements. Which leads onto the next point that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization and Google is a private company.
Early criticism of knol suggests that Google may have business incentive to give precedence to knol in its search results.
How is Knol different to Wikipedia?
In his 2005 blog essay titled "The Amorality of Web 2.0," Nicholas Carr criticised the quality of volunteer Web 2.0 information projects such as Wikipedia and argued that they may have a net negative effect on society by displacing more expensive professional alternatives. He describe the deterioration as “the cult of the amateur” and gives several examples of “slipshod” entries. Wikipedia is well aware of its shortcomings, however that does not stop it from being a primary source of information for many people. On the wikipedia site, it states that while some information may not be as credible as what you would find in a printed encyclopedia, one of the advantages of the model meant that information was a lot more up to date.
So will knol be “truthier” than Wikipedia?
As mentioned in an earlier post, Mark Bauerlein claims in his new book, “the Dumb generation” that people are starting to show that when looking for information on the Internet, people "seek out what they already hope to find, and they want it fast and free, with a minimum of effort." This is the essence of truthiness, “the ‘true facts’ that we would like to believe”.
How will the new author moderated version get around this?
The theory is that those who have put their name to the knol will take responsibility for the quality, in order to maintain their reputation.
Evaluating information on the web:
When looking for information on the web, wikipedia is often a helpful place to start, and hopefully knol will also be useful. It pays to be discerning, mind. Here are some simple guidelines for evaluating the quality of the information on sites like knol and wikipedia, or any other information found on the web:
1. Scope of coverage – To what extent does it explore a topic? Is that made clear?
2. Authority – What is the reputation of the author/ publisher?
3. Objectivity – Are there any biases? Are they acknowledged? Is the piece balanced (consider persuasive language)
4. Accuracy – Is the piece peer reviewed? What is the editing/publishing policy?
5. Timeliness – is the information current?
If you're interested, here is some further reading:
Barker, Joe. "Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask (Why and How)." UC Berkeley - Teaching Library Internet Workshops.
Smith, Alastair G. "
Testing the Surf: Criteria for Evaluating Internet Information Resources." .
Photo credits:
Pic sourced from Future reading: Digitization and its discontents, by Anthony Grafton. The New Yorker, November 5, 2007.
