What's a "knol" you ask? (Wait, was that you or the voices...) A knol is a word invented by Google to represent a unit of knowledge. We needed this word, you know, because we haven't yet fulfilled our "irritating Web 2.0 buzzwords" quota.
Knol, currently in a testing phase for invited knollers (I can make words up, too), is a free tool, with which knol-it-alls (thank you, I'll be here all night!) can post "authoritative articles" on stuff they know about (e.g., bananas, polar bears, poisonous shamrocks, gnarled toes, cat cataracts, etc.). Using community tools, readers can then rate articles, post comments, and submit additional content.
While this sounds dangerously similar to every university's most loathed online reference, Wikipedia, there are a few notable differences. Wikipedia's platform allows for users to edit content, but knols would only be editable by each author. In turn, while Wikipedia hosts one page per topic, Knol would allow authors to post competing pages on the same topic.
Additionally, and perhaps more glaringly hairy, unlike Wikipedia, the Knol service would have a commercial side to it. According to the Google blog: "At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
In last week's editor's blog, "Does the Web Owe You Money?," we discussed the prospect of Web users raking in cash for their content contributions. While the general consensus on our in-story poll was that Web users should not get paid for their crappity crap load of user-generated crap, Google seems to think otherwise.
According to Google, the driving idea behind this project is to highlight authors who, unlike book authors, get lost in the Waves on the World Wide Web. Thus, terming them "authors" (Author! Author!) rather than low-life content generators, makes them worthy of compensation. Brava!
Thanks for the money, G, but this eenie meenie minor detail sort of obscures the big picture for me: "Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content." Bless me! So, then, what Google is really doing is beating the legitimacy out of a once-respectable word like "author" and awarding the title to anyone with an opposable thumb or two and something to say about the War of 1812.
By promoting regular online schmoes to "author" and tossing them "substantial revenue share," we're on our way to defining the next stage of the Web by severely debased standards and a deluge of insufficient information. However, if this is really where we're headed (to the land of commendable mediocrity), sites like Wikipedia may need to step up their compensation game in order to stay afloat.
I think it's funny that the link Nicole has to "knol" on the Google blog ends with, ostensibly, an example called "Insomnia." Clearly, it took an insomniac to think, "Okay, we've got calories, we have degrees, we have dollars and the Euro, but we don't have units of knowledge."
And then, goodness, who really types a line like:
Once testing is completed, participation in knols will be completely open
Is there someone who thinks knols is cool? I think knols had to have been created by someone who thought Magic was just too simple of a table game. Or, maybe by someone planning on attending many holiday parties (celebrating, I guess, the first kno-l) and needing a topic of differentiation ("What have you been doing lately?" "I've been devoting considerable research to knols, actually.....).
Someone, somewhere, probably will determine that this post only contains 7 knols, which, I have to assume, would be bad. In the meantime, I hope all you Google topic posters here have a great holiday week.
"Does this really make the posts better or is 'knol' just the expansion of the Google Empire? "
Can I answer "Both?"
Probably not relevant anyway because Wikipedia has such a vast array of content and I just don't see Google catching up. Like they didn't catch up to YouTube with their Google Video service (before they bought YouTube). And like they haven't caught up to Microsoft with their Google Docs nonsense.
The emerging theme seems to be that Google just does an awful lot of anything it feels like these days. I guess they have the budget for it. What do they do WELL, though? Still just hunt and click searchy stuff.... all very Web 1.0 and dull. And when you have the majority of the market you are vulnerable.
In the first place, Google's idea of creating their way to Encouraging people to contribute knowledge looks like a 1:1 copy. But after reading their value proposition it is obvious that their forum will be different. Are you trusting comments, reports and posts on Wikipedia one hundred percent? Are you using Wikipedia as a quote in your paper thesis? And if so, might it be the case that your 5 years old son changed the article because he thought he needs to "contribute knowledge" ?
Goggle says that the goal of knol is to cover all topics from "science" to "how-to-fix-it". Absolutely comparable to the content, that is already posted and available on Wikipedia. The only difference is that people will not be able to post articles anonymous. We will be able to track the authors.
Here the question:
Does this really make the posts better or is 'knol' just the expansion of the Google Empire?
I've been following the debate ever since Googl launched their Knol project and i must confess that the wide range of views has make the debate a very thrilling one. Whilst some are viewing Knol as a ploy by Google to kill wikipedia and mahalo, others are simply rebuffing it as a money venture. Still others are satisfied with Google's explanation that they simply want to encourage people to contribute knowledge.
As we've been discussing about the future of the internet, it's now crystal clear than ever that the internet is evolving and project like Knol would keep raising the bar in this polarized cyberworld.
Personally, i don't see Knol setting the cyber world on fire. Firstly by trying to create content, isee it as a ploy by Google to control the contents users see on line and i'm still to be convince how good they are at content creation and publishing as they are in their core business of search and advertising. Secondly, i also don't see the benefits which Knol will offer than what we have now from personal blogs and message forms, vertical search engines and wikipedia. Thirdly, with so many Knols on a given topic, we can be overwhelmed with alternative views that could be more annoying than anything else. Even with the promise of rating these Knols, it remains to be seen how these ratings will reflect the value of the information.
As you've righlty pointed out, it seems Knol is taking us to a new direction and it;s time for the others to step up to this new level because when a company like Googl speaks, it's prudent on your part to listen and get ready for whatever they may throw at you.
Google said that the main objective behind the knol is to "find a way to help people share their knowledge". The intent is good, but many will see this idea as a way for Google to breaden their "current advertising kingdom" by reinventing Wikipedia
It is obvious that when Knol will gain populariry any search with google engine will primarily be directed to Knol contents and as you said, site such as wikipedia.org and about.com/ will have to buckle down if they want to remain competive.
The evolutionary biologist and cantankerous atheist Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" about 30 years ago, defined as a unit of cultural information and, therefore, a building block of social evolution. It hasn't really caught on in the wider community, but "knol" may be ugly enough and pointless enough to do so. And besides, it's on Google.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been working with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) to look into the attacks on its Chinese servers.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
Now that Bing has struck a deal with Twitter, its search service will have to process a tsunami of Tweets, many of which are worthless junk. Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, explains to Michael Singer how his service will make sense of the Twitter mayhem to provide relevant results to end users and enterprises.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
Bing, Microsoft’s search service, has struck a deal with Twitter. Here Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, talks through how the deal will work from a technical perspective, and what’s in it for users.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
