I just finished my first knol, titled Wikipedia. It made me do a lot of thinking about online references, including WIkipedia and its competitors. I came to the conclusion that there’s no perfect approach. Wikipedia and Knol both have their strong points, but each one is also deeply flawed.

As I see it, the only solution is to create a series of online referneces, each with its own operating guidelines and conventions. One other suggestion I made is that Wikipedia and its rivals should all be honest about their shortcomings.

In fact, Wikipedia does feature articles about Wikipedia bias, inaccuracy, etc. However, I think I’ve discovered some areas where it misses the mark.

Hopefully, Knol will do better.

Wikipedia are there already.

This is not a ‘groundbreaking’ product.”

One step closer to ruling the world…

Badgergirl: “Why is this a problem?”

Spend several years working on a website focusing on geography, fashion, cars or whatever and nursing it to the top, only to see it bumped by an online giant. Whether or not it’s good for society, it obviously isn’t good for the individual who gets pushed aside.

“No so many years ago, the ideal in higher education was to let ideas flow, to share knowledge, to celebrate knowledge. People have become so obsessed with “monetizing” everything, that now instead of being interested in growing, exchanging and spreading knoweledge, we know fret that somebody might compete with MY knowledge or steal MY knowledge and that entity should somehow be suppressed.”

I never suggested Knol should be suppressed; I support it - cautiously.

As for materialism, I agree that people are too obsessed with money. On the other hand, many of us need money to pay the rent. This brings us sto the classic dilemma: Should people get paid for sharing knowledge? Does the fact that they’re getting paid make them somehow biased or unreliable?

Wikipedia’s articles are in a sense more “pure” because the contributors aren’t paid. On the other hand, anonymity makes it easier for them to write crap. Knol introduces the profit motive, but it also allows authors to sign their names to their work. At the same time, visistors will be allowed to vote on “competing” articles. I think that will be an awesome experiment.

“The whole paranoia and possessiveness thing is darned depressing. Google has many wonderful services and products. Many of them are not dominant and have better competitors but still are out there for people to use if they like. I don’t see Google as being anything like Microsoft.”

I think Wikipedia desperately needs competition. In fact, I think there should be three or more great bodies of online knowledge - Wikipedia, Knol and at least one other.

I further think that Google and Microsoft are polar opposites. As near as I can tell, Google is pretty ethical for the most part, and it certainly understands innovation.

Still, any corporation of that size is a potential menace. Even if Google’s founders are really cool people, who’s going to run Google fifty years from now?

So, no, it isn’t paranoid to ask questions, nor is it bad to be possessive about projects you’ve slaved over all your life. It’s one thing for another person to create a better product; it’s quite another to lose your work to copyright infringement, corporate games or whatever.

“suppose I create a website featuring articles about all the world’s mammals, only to discover that Google has somehow created a similar resource out of a series of knols.”

Why is this a problem? No so many years ago, the ideal in higher education was to let ideas flow, to share knowledge, to celebrate knowledge. People have become so obsessed with “monetizing” everything, that now instead of being interested in growing, exchanging and spreading knoweledge, we know fret that somebody might compete with MY knowledge or steal MY knowledge and that entity should somehow be suppressed.

The whole paranoia and possessiveness thing is darned depressing. Google has many wonderful services and products. Many of them are not dominant and have better competitors but still are out there for people to use if they like. I don’t see Google as being anything like Microsoft. Most of Google’s stuff is free, and nobody is forced to use any of it. If you don’t like their search engine, then use another search engine. Or write your own knol.

Wikipedia are there already.

This is not a ‘groundbreaking’ product.

Remains to be seen whether the public thinks it has any actual value, or sees it as what it is, a slightly ‘green’ product.

So far it’s very heavily health related and with articles that are a lot more eZineArticles like rather than Wikipedia like. I think Knol will provide a lot more competition to the article directories than it will Wikipedia or other similar sites.

not sure what the worry is, surely it just means that any seo chap worth his salt will be using Knol to publish content to max things for their cleints

if the world gets bored of seeing knol at the top or taking up the first 5 spots then the result will be very simple… whoever has the sexiest, most productive search engine at that time will clean up and become the next trillionaire

sometimes companies should recognise when they are great at one thing and stick to that, buy a few properties for the pension fund and relax…