I remember President Reagan in a debate with President Carter, utter the words, "There you go again." Well, there Google goes again. Google has just launched a new site to rival Wikipedia. If you haven't read the story, check it out on Breitbart.com at, Google launches rival to Wikipedia. Is it time to buy stock in Google or am I too late?
According to the article, Google's own version of a communally constructed online encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia went live late Wednesday with a free service dubbed "Knol," which indicates a unit of knowledge. Knol...hmm, I can't help but picture an ugly troll under a bridge. Eh, it's probably just me. "The key principle behind Knol is authorship," say Google product manager Cedric Dupont and software engineer Michael McNally.
The article says: While
Wikipedia lets any visitors make changes to its online pages, trusting
that people with accurate information will correct errors and
misleading entries, Google lets folks author their own articles.
"Every knol will have an author, or group of authors, who put their
name behind their content," Google product manager Cedric Dupont and
software engineer Michael McNally said in a posting on the Google
website. "It's their knol, their voice, their opinion. An
enormous amount of information resides in peoples' heads: millions of
people know useful things and billions more could benefit from that
knowledge." It also goes on to say you can post pictures and pedigrees, and you're able to designate who can contribute to your posting. I don't know about you, but as a writer who does a lot of online research, I have a policy not to use information I find on Wikipedia unless I find two sources to match it. I've found information on Wikipedia that wasn't accurate. I wonder just how accurate Google's "Knol" will be, (Dang, there's another word I have to add to my spell checker.) One of the good things I see, is that each knol will have the authors' names, which will make it easier to crosscheck. The fact that the authors' can lock the posting, so no one can add to it without their consent, is surely a step above Wikipedia. Are you a writer who uses Wikipedia Do you trust its information? If not, how many times have you found wrong information in Wikipedia? While you answer those questions, I'm going to go call my broker!
I use Wiki for general knowledge topics. For example, I needed to know what a carburator does in an engine for my book, but I didn't need to be bogged down with mechani-speak. Wiki is the perfect place for things like that. But if I had needed more in-depth knowledge about that same topic, I would have gone to an actual mechanical website.
I do like the idea of contributors being named, and therefore accountable for what they post.
Posted by: R.J. Keller | July 27, 2008 at 08:32 PM
R.J.,
Your right. I've done the same thing when it's something that's not going to kill the credibility of my story. I'm hoping to find time today to visit Knol again this afternoon and take it for another spin. I think eventually it may be a good source for interviews on specialized topics with hopefully credentialed professionals. Thanks.
Posted by: Grant Stone | July 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM