July 23, 2008
Google Presents Wikipedia Competitor
Google today launched Knol, an online encyclopedia that, in many ways, mimics Wikipedia, the popular encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As in Wikipedia, anyone can create a page in Knol. But changes to the page become active only after they are approved by the page’s author or authors. And unlike Wikipedia, the author’s name is featured prominently on Knol articles.
Among the featured articles on the Knol site today are “How to Backpack,” “Lung Cancer,” and “Toilet Clogs.”
Daniel Colman, director and associate dean of Stanford University’s continuing-studies program and author of the blog OpenCulture, predicted in December that Knol would have a hard time attracting experts to write articles.—Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Wednesday July 23, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Blackboard Officials Say They Are Likely to Continue Legal Action Against Competitor
Next: U. of Illinois to Set Tuition for New Online Programs
Wikipedia, while very accessible and useful, has the major shortcomings that we all know about. I hope Google does a credible job.
— Larry Gillis Jul 24, 06:48 AM #
Competition is almost always good, but W will be tough to improve upon. For example, take a look at the articles on Ratko Mladić, Slobodan Milošević, and Radovan Karadžić in W today. While I am sure there are more complete, and possibly more balanced biographies of all three individuals around, where would you direct the non-specialist for a better overview of their lives, up to date as of yesterday? As an academic library director I like to repeat a dictum I heard from Joe Lucia. “Only librarians are interested in looking for information— everybody else is interested in finding it.” Those of us who get mildly aroused hunting down the “truth” will always know of a better place than W for the real deal. But as an all-purpose resource freely accessible to everyone else, please tell me what beats W?
— Philip J Tramdack Jul 24, 07:45 AM #
I think Knol has a way to go. Searches for such simple entries as “cheese” and “tomato” produced no results.
— Some guy Jul 24, 09:55 AM #
Do a search for “Pizza” next time.
— Shinobi Jul 24, 11:02 AM #
This is the latest in a series of strategic stumbles by Google that mirror similar mistakes by Microsoft. The Wpedia has “soaked up” a huge amount of donated resources from the public, and there probably is not enough left out there to sustain a second one. Google should have formed a partnership — which is how it really made its long term mark — than try to build its own.
— ead Jul 24, 11:30 AM #
Without Wikipedia, I would be lost trying to solve the NY Times crossword.
— buy a vowel and 2 consonants Jul 24, 11:49 AM #
Hmm. I’m always amused by the naivete of some Chronicle users – Wikipedia has major shortcomings (what are they?), market is too small for 2nd Wikipedia…
Instead of carping, why not treat Knol’s intro as a op for some research – e.g., compare Knol, Wikipedia, and Citizendium.
— John Thompson Jul 24, 11:55 AM #
Well, the obvious shortcoming of wikipedia is that it’s not an authoritative source, since anyone can go in and edit a page. I think it’s a useful tool to get started on looking into something but you can’t use it as an authoritative source for anything.
— Joe Jul 24, 12:16 PM #
Anyone can state the truth, and even authoritative sources may be incorrect. To claim otherwise would be the very example of an inverse ad hominem argument.
— Robert Jul 24, 01:49 PM #
No one has mentioned a major difference: All Knol articles are signed by the authors. Google even has a method to certify the identity of authors. Knol has very much the feel of creating a Google Doc, a system that now even allows off-line editing. (Disclaimer, so to speak: I now have about 200 Google Docs as components of my research, shared with students and colleagues.)
— Bob Futrelle Jul 24, 07:47 PM #
There are a couple of issues that I see. First, is that the author has to approve changes. What if they don’t want their view changed? Second is what if the author falls off the face of the earth, who will be able to take over an abandon page? I also have to wonder if multiple pages on the same topic will be allowed, then you will get numerous pages.
While this is interesting, I don’t think that it will replace anything, including Wikipedia.
— K S Jul 25, 04:32 PM #