Help
Sign In
Wikipedia
December 2009 
Integral Knol?
Posted on Dec 14th, 2007
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
Google is "encouraging people to contribute knowledge" with a new service called "knol"--a unit of knowledge. Its goal is:
"...to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it.... The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. Books have authors' names right on the cover, news articles have bylines, scientific articles always have authors -- but somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors names highlighted. We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content."
This is Google's direct assault at the "walled garden" of knowledge like Wikipedia, Wikia, and Squidoo. Knol will attempt to solve the problem of chaotic collective anonymous editing (and vandalizing) of wikis and its unfriendly user interface by providing a more user-friendly editing tool for knowledgeable authors "who will put their reputation on the line."
Google will not handle the editing and checking of knols. Its job is to provide the tool and then rank the knols based on links, comments, reviews, and other citations. Knols created by authors with high reputation would bubble up above competing topics from less reputable authors (eventually ranking up higher than the Wikipedia counterparts created by less reputable and anonymous authors.)
I appreciate the value of this effort. Allow me to give a concrete example.
Let's say you want to know more about Ken Wilber's Integral Theory. When you google "integral theory" the first result (currently) is a link to a Wikipedia entry called Integral Movement. Although the wiki entry provides a good overview, you have no idea who created the entry. Yes, you can look at the edit history and see a bunch of names but you have no idea what their expertise are and how knowledgeable they are with the topic. It's up to you, the reader, whether to trust or believe the information.
Another problem with the wiki article is that it keeps on changing. Using the same example as above, previously, the wiki article is called integral theory, now it's called "Integral Movement." I don't care about the movement. I'm interested in the theory. This is very annoying especially for people who link to the wiki entry. This inconsistency also happened to the wiki entry AQAL. Previously there is a wiki entry on AQAL. Now, AQAL links to Ken Wilber's wiki entry. I don't care about Wilber. I care about AQAL! This is an example of what happens to certain wiki entries edited by a collective who are enthusiastic and maybe knowledgeable on a topic but don't have their reputation on the line at stake on the subject-matter.
Now, let's say that Ken Wilber decided to use Knol and writes an article about integral theory and AQAL. As the original author and thinker behind integral theory and AQAL, his reputation is on the line when he writes those articles. Readers would be ensured that they are reading from an article created by an "expert" and "authority" on the subject-matter. The article would be more accurate, more stable, more believable, and more trustworthy compared to the wiki entry.
That said, I think Mashable made a good point:
"Any time you create a tabula rosa set of tools with the intent for some sort of high-minded community to develop from them, but exert no editorial control on the genres or quality of content, you’re going to end up with something significantly different (or lackluster) from what you previously imagined."
However, I think that if reputable authors adopted and embraced Knol, Google will be on its way of creating an open, evolving, and credible sources of information which can be cited by students in their research and acceptable in academia. This is the main advantage of knols over wikis--their credibility and Google's ranking algorithm.
Imagine knols on String Theory authored by Brian Greene, knols on Climate Change written by members of the IPCC, knols on natural selection written by Richard Dawkins and other experts on evolutionary biology... You catch my drift.
Of course, the main challenge is how to get reputable authors to adopt Knol. What would be the incentive of using it? Reputation? Fame? Academic status? Popularity? Ad revenue? Altruistic sharing of knowledge? All of the above and more?
What is not yet clear is whether Knol would have options for group editing (similar to a wiki). But my guess is that this feature is so important to pass up. So I expect a knol which is collectively authored by a group of credible authors.
I'm excited to see how Knol would turn out and compete with services like Wikipedia, Wikia, Squidoo, and Mahalo. In the meantime, check out the Google Blog to see a snapshot of a knol in action.
Access: Public
That's valuable - but it's also valuable having an amalgamated approach to knowledge.
The Brian Greene example is perfect - He's absolutely invested in the topic, a major contributor to the paradigm. But Lee Smolin, who believes that regular science has been knocked off track for two decades by the allure of strings, should have his concerns weighted respectively, too. And not just as an insurgent “and now for someone who opposes the mainstream view” - his concerns are pure basic science “strings cannot be disproved”, “string behavior has not been directly observed”.
It goes to a larger problem… I'd suggest that there is no such thing as a unit of knowledge, only a complex of knowledge. And wikipedia does better at obtaining that complex than do articles. We need to be moving away from the “ask.com” single-expert mode of knowledge, and to an even better representation of knowledge complexes. IMO
Thanks for the knowledge, C4 :D
CMG said: “And wikipedia does better at obtaining that complex than do articles. We need to be moving away from the “ask.com” single-expert mode of knowledge, and to an even better representation of knowledge complexes. IMO”
good point. but knol “a basic unit of knowledge” because it is more focused, granular, and authored by a more credible source than its Wikipedia counterpart.
people are already talking about Knol as Wikipedia killer. and in a sense there is some truth to it, since Google has this high hopes for knol:
“A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read. The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions.”
however, i don't think that knol would be a Wikipedia killer. as you pointed out, there is “only a complex of knowledge.” Wikipedia will continue to serve as the amalgamated portal to knowledge. but eventually, if Knol gets a wide adoption from credible authors and experts, Wikipedia authors would have no choice but to link to the Knol entries, thus boosting the ranking of the knols. Wikipedia entries will be secondary sources of knowledge.
actually, the way i use Wikipedia is just like that: a secondary source of knowledge. for example, whenever i read an article, i just browse through it and then look at the External links section as the primary source of information. i also find value on the Criticism section of Wikipedia articles because it points me to other source of information and critiques on certain topics. but in general i don't take Wikipedia entries as primary source of credible of info. it's an excellent starting point which gives an overview and points to the primary sources of information (e.g. via external links). an impeccably written knol by a credible author is a primary source of information in of itself.
now, here's a question: if you're an academic writing a knol on a topic of your expertise, would you link to a Wikipedia entry as a reference? i doubt it.
if you look at the Insomia knol sample from Google, you'll notice that it has a professional quality to it, more focused, and cited references point to books, journals, and research papers. compare it with the Wikipedia entry on Insomnia. which would you rather read? which would be acceptable by academia?
another issue with Wikipedia is that it has a higher barrier to entry for authors. wiki authors have to learn its cryptic markup language to write and format articles. Google's Knol would be more user-friendly thus encouraging knowledgeable authors to just focus on writing articles–“Writers only need to write; we'll [Google] do the rest.” in short, as far as writing articles is concerned, a Knol is to Wikipedia, as Blogger is to HTML page. if Blogger changed the landscape of personal publishing, knol has the potential to… let's wait and see :)
~C
Thanks for this C4, very interesting.
I love Wikipedia, but it's true, I also, for the most part ' just browse through it and then look at the External links section as the primary source of information.'
Very interested in having both Wiki and Knols.
The comment from Mashable - “Any time you create a tabula rosa set of tools with the intent for some sort of high-minded community to develop from them, but exert no editorial control on the genres or quality of content, you’re going to end up with something significantly different (or lackluster) from what you previously imagined.”
– just great. And perhaps appropriate to some of the discussions on Seeds et al here. Thanks again.
Love,
Sandra
@CMG
Indeed, the unit of Knowledge is in demand. At the core of this challenge is for me a revolutionary breakthrough in science which is shouted out at Nobel Prize Committees too. At Time Magazine. At serious scientiic periodicals. At CNN. At BBC.Though I do not trust them naively. See James Joye with his trailblazing contributions to Modern Literature…He never received one…
Nowhere inside academic orbits there is deepe appreciation of integral or proto-integral approaches. Ask Zaadster Wendelin Küpers from Germany who is involved -as Academic himself- in establishing European Integral Academy.
Ask brilliant European Thinker Peter Sloterdijk who is heavyweight of thinking for me. like Jürgen Habermas. Not talkn seriously by the academic crowds.
Google has its European Headquarter in Dublin. Guys, come on….invest something really really daring which goes to the core of thinking! And do not confuse it with marketing. Dive deeper into World Thinking traditions and revolutionary research. THAT would shake me up!
Albert, thanks for the heads up on Peter Sloterdijk. if only i could read German :)
Laughing:):) Peter himself should overcome his francophile tendencies.)
www.petersloterdijk.net
The Franco-German Axis of philosophical and scientific thinking in relationship to anglo-saxon traditions could be itself a remarkable contribution for Knol…)
A very interesting proposition from Google.
I do greatly appreciate a lot of the technologies that Google has created. Most especially Google Earth (amazing!). And even though Google is often my first choice for finding information on the internet [I use research databases such as EbscoHost for academic research], I am glad that Google has not really taken over the internet yet.
The proposition of Knols thus makes me a little suspicious.
While I put little stock in Wikipedia, they can be helpful and informative if you just want a general [potentially-inaccurate] picture of a concept or term you have heard about and are unfamiliar with.
As you noted, C4, part of the structure of the Knol system will ultimately result in Wiki articles being put farther down in the list of [Google] search results, and less likely to be used.
While Knols may be more useful, I am not entirely sure that the foremost scholars on a given topic will be writing their respective Knols [the Brian Greens and Lee Smolins of the world] - more likely it will be lesser known University professors, or reasonably likely, regular people of expertise not necessarily greater than those who dedicate their time to writing wikis. Knowing who it is wrote a particular [section of an] article will only be as useful as we can view and verify the credentials of that writer.
Finally, I anticipate that I would most benefit from Knols through the citation section, as we do now with wikis. It would be very helpful to see the reputed books and articles an author used in compiling the presented information if I need to write about a similar topic.
Thanks for bringing us the news!
I see Wikipedia as collecting the “conventional wisdom” of people at large- [admittedly only those who use the Web. It's the knowledge- right or wrong or half there- that people use in their lives; even if it is not intellectually verified. However, just for that reason, it may be more “real” than knowledge truer knowledge that isn't widely disseminated.
Knols seem a good idea to go into the “real truth”; but as Xander suggests, who's to verify? Specially as so much that was taken as historical or scientific truth at one moment in time, changes as more information comes to light.
Thanks for telling us about this. C4!
Xander said: ”While Knols may be more useful, I am not entirely sure that the foremost scholars on a given topic will be writing their respective Knols [the Brian Greens and Lee Smolins of the world] - more likely it will be lesser known University professors, or reasonably likely, regular people of expertise not necessarily greater than those who dedicate their time to writing wikis. Knowing who it is wrote a particular [section of an] article will only be as useful as we can view and verify the credentials of that writer.”
good point. i agree. that's why for Knowls to be successful, it has to be embraced by academia. if not, then it won't be as different than Squidoo, About.com.
Meenakshi said: ”Knols seem a good idea to go into the “real truth”; but as Xander suggests, who's to verify?”
the collective and peers will verify. the same way Google use citations to rank search results. the difference with Knols is that the reputation of the author is at stake so they would be more careful of writing articles that people who write wikis.
~C