Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge

Google Knol

Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge

In an announcement last week, Google Vice President of Engineering Udi Manber announced the invitation-only testing of Knol, a site hosting user-generated content on a wide range of subjects.

The term knol was coined by Google to mean a unit of knowledge, and refers to the entire project as well as individual articles. While the jury is still out on whether Knol will be successful, or whether it will even make it to a public launch, the obvious comparison that has sparked the Internet alight is with Wikipedia.

There are some immediately apparent differences between Knol and Wikipedia. The most important one is that Knol is not a wiki. Content pages will be owned by a single author and that sole author has the responsibility of maintaining its content; other users can participate by suggesting edits, or by rating or commenting on the article. This setup is comparable to that of, e.g., PlanetMath.

With immediate comparisons to Wikipedia, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was interviewed for articles relating to Knol; Wales classified the project as "cool", but noted that, with advertising, and potential commercial benefits to its authors based on ad revenue, "you may see an awful lot of articles about Viagra."

Foundation Chair Florence Devouard took a more cautious approach to Knol:

I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech or as in free of charge). Many parties are trying to influence us, to buy us, and conflicts of interest are becoming the rule rather than the exception. There are power struggles on the path.

Meanwhile, Mathias Schindler noted that a screenshot of the site seemed to indicate that its content may be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, which would allow its usage within other works, potentially including Wikipedia.

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I suggest changing the title to "death knell for Wikipedia?"; people will still get the Knol-knell connection.--ragesoss (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both spellings, with 'e' and 'o' are both ok? Or are you just saying that the title is just a little too obvious? enochlau (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been thoughtful comments on this by wikipedian bloggers: [1], [2] and [3]. Circeus (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll link to those. (I know David is a Wikipedian, but I'll trust you on that the other two are also Wikipedians!) enochlau (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other two are User:Nzgabriel and User:Cohesion, respectively. Circeus (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled it quite a bit; traditionally, the Signpost's tried to stay more NPOV, and just report the facts of the situation. While I can see the merit of having some POV, I think for consistency, we shouldn't do so. Ral315 (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See your talk page.) enochlau (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that there will be no fact checking on any Knols, I don't think their content would be reliable for use in Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been announced what licence it will be published in? CC? GFDL ? (please?) Can Google copyright it if it's user generated? Paragon12321 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost article says Meanwhile, Mathias Schindler noted that a screenshot of the site seemed to indicate that its content may be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, which would allow its usage within other works, potentially including Wikipedia.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences

Not only isn't it a wiki, it's not an encyclopedia either, and doesn't have any kind of bias policy. So I think the competitive aspect has been greatly exaggerated. Superm401 - Talk 11:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.

Home

About


Also this week: From the editor Former COO Möller move Google Knol WikiWorld News and notes In the news WikiProject report Features and admins Technology report Arbitration report

	Signpost archives