Open Culture - Latest Comments in Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

Re: Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

Jason Shick — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:45:53 -0000

I'm wondering what it means for somebody with a blog? I spend a little time submitting articles for websites such as ezine articles, but is Knol similar to ezine or is it a different concept altogether? I've only just heard of it today, so I suppose I need to check it out.

Re: Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

melissa urrutia — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:22:36 -0000

me aburre

Re: Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

Peter Baskerville — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:30:57 -0000

I for one think that the Knol project is aimed more as a first point online learning platform not just an information source. We start with units of knowledge and from there custom build courseware to as an online learning platform. Once enough critical mass of 'units' have been written, a new learning compiler could be placed over the top creating a course using the course author's preference of units. See my know about the future of education and the place that the knol project will play in it.

Re: Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

Dan Colman — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:16:12 -0000

Hi Jenny,

I hadn't really looked at things from this perspective. You're right. That's a concern that Google needs to take seriously. The line between knowledge and PR is one that shouldn't be crossed. And, in fact, Stanford's medical school just implemented a regulation that prevents corporations (read: medical companies) from contributing money to continuing medical education. Think it happened just last week. Here's the story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/...

Thanks for the thoughts,
Dan

Re: Knol: Ok, It’s Not Wikipedia. But What Is It?

Jenny Reiswig — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:35:37 -0000

I agree with your assessment. I think the sole authorship element is a problem. As I understand it, the model is partly intended to confer the authority that Wikipedia lacks, so that you know there is someone behind each article. But who sets the expertise criteria for ownership of articles? The "authoritative" encyclopedias of the past all had extensive editorial boards that vetted authors and articles. I've looked at quite a number of the medical knols in particular, and there are many knols written by doctors but also knols written by lawyers and other business people in what seem to me to be barely-veiled attempts to generate business. There are medical knols that are clearly biased against or in favor of alternative therapies. However, unlike Wikipedia, there is a lack of an obvious structure that lets users easily navigate around to see what other knols exist on related topics. I still don't quite see where Google thinks this is going to go or how it's going to work if it does get as large as Wikipedia. I'll be interested to see what other replies you get.