Google Takes on Wikipedia

Google has a new goal: help people share their knowledge. That’s right - forget Wikis, and welcome Knols (apparently "knol" stands for “unit of knowledge”). Although the service is right now invitation-only, the search giant isn’t shy about sharing what it’s trying to achieve (information domination). Knols will appear in Google search results, and it is promised that they will be ranked in order of quality. How will this beat Wikipedia? That’s an easy one. If the author chooses to, they can add advertising to a knoll and get a portion of the ad revenue.

The search giant plans to provide the software for writing and editing knols, as well as the hosting space for them. The knol project puts an emphasis on who wrote a given piece of information: “We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content.” A knol is supposed to be the starting point for a research paper, it is meant to cover everything related to the topic, and Google swears not to change any information: “All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors. We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write”.

View: A Knol
News source: Google Blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Life on the EEEdge: Daily life with Asus' tiny laptop

Next Story

Disabling UAC Slows Vista's Bootup Time?

41 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

mmmh...
add supported encyclopedia...
somehow I don't see a guarantee of freedom of speech that is unlimited here.
Same thing with newspapers nowadays... read one and search for the level of critics for certain things that advertise in that paper, they are lower than in other papers...

also you should try to enter a market before its booming and almost impossible to catch up.
i mean wikipedia has reached a goal that kleenex has achieved for example: you wiki something.
you do not "search on wikipedia". (not every1 uses this expression, but it obviously is common).

Glassed Silver:mbl

Wikipedia is a overhyped crap, it's just amusing to find (many) articles on wikipedia saying: This article is marked cause/for .... a unverifiable source, need cleaning, mark as deletion and such.

May be google can success where wikipedia failed.

ps :On wikipedia, self cleaning worked for a while, now is more a self-bashing.

People complain about MS's domination, but Google is turning out just as bad. I'm for competition, but Google thinks thye need to compete with everyone everywhere...

gnznroses said,
People complain about MS's domination, but Google is turning out just as bad. I'm for competition, but Google thinks thye need to compete with everyone everywhere...

Google will always be a darling to many because it's free.

gnznroses said,
People complain about MS's domination, but Google is turning out just as bad. I'm for competition, but Google thinks thye need to compete with everyone everywhere...

I say, if you can do something better than someone, go right ahead and do it.

The main problem I have with Google and this is that Google has turned into a gigantic, politically active, very far leftist entity and I do not trust them at all to let wikigoogle evolve without their paw prints all over it. The very far left and right have a problem with free speech. I view this in exactly the same way I would view Wikipedia being taken over by Enron.

No, you're right. Google totally respects privacy. Did you know they do absolutely no tracking or logging of your searches or e-Mail content?

But I guess we can't all avoid the "we're here to help" illusion.

Wikipedia will go down in history as the great project that never was. It is just too inaccurate to be good, and I am speaking as a former administrator.

Maybe the google project will work, maybe not. It's worth trying though.

It looks much cleaner and therefore easier to read, I suppose, but given that it will ultimately work on the same premise as Wikipedia, I fail to see the benefit. What it will mean is that we have two places where pseudo experts can go and post anything they like, and dress it up as intelligent fact.

Still, they'll both be good sources for those who are too thick to know how to turn pages in a book.

Knol sounds a lot like Gnoll.

Gnolls are the literary descendants of Lord Dunsany's "gnoles", who were clever, evil and nonhuman. This connection is evidenced by Gary Gygax's description in the first edition of "Dungeons & Dragons" (1974): "A cross between gnomes and trolls (...perhaps, Lord Sunsany [sic] did not really make it all that clear) with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to hobgoblins..." With the 1977 publication of Gygax's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual gnolls were described in greater detail as hyena-men, a characterization that continues to the present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnoll

This information was brought to you by HeadOn. HeadOn, apply it directly to your forehead for +2 morale.

(I am doing an imitation of a Knol)

He should sue. Directly to the forehead for a +5 litigation bonus.

Hey, if Microsoft could sue Lindows over heir name sounding too much like Windows, then why not him?

Croquant said,
He should sue. Directly to the forehead for a +5 litigation bonus.

Hey, if Microsoft could sue Lindows over heir name sounding too much like Windows, then why not him?


With Google's G* names, he might soon get even more of a reason. They very well may end up renaming it to Gnols

Primetime2006 said,
I never thought a company could monopolize more than Microsoft. I guess I was wrong.

I've had it with Google already. Go to hell.

agreed

Primetime2006 said,
I never thought a company could monopolize more than Microsoft. I guess I was wrong.

I've had it with Google already. Go to hell.

I don't mind google so much. the only thing that really bugs me is the 'Fisher-Price' feel of it all. I use gmail, and I wish it looked nicer.

That being said, I'm aware enough that I realise its friendly-friendly-We'reNotOutToMakeMoneyJustHelp approach will in some ways attract the other 90% of the internet population and ultimately lead to some kind of a corrupting monopoly. (you know the kind of people I'm talking about; the kind of people who didn't use AOL cd's as frisbees in the 90's, but instead took out a monthly subscription...!)

just my £0.02, £0.01

Primetime2006 said,
I never thought a company could monopolize more than Microsoft. I guess I was wrong.

I've had it with Google already. Go to hell.

+1

I'll take the role as the nitpicker here and say this seems more like Citizendium than Wikipedia, because it sounds like they'll focus on expert contributors (at least in the start), unlike Wikipedia. It says it'll open up for more users in the future, but it's not clear on what parts of the site, if that includes editing articles, or just rating them, for example.

For some reason I thought that Google was a supporter of Wikipedia. I think in 2005 Google donated a bunch of stuff to them or something. I guess that was then, and this is now.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Actually, that should be £0.01 with the current exchange rate... afterall, the expression is "my two cents".

played! why do you think i'm getting all my xmas presents from the US?! It basically feels like a 50% sale! (Emphasis on 'feels', its probably more like 25...).

So what happens if someone writes a "Knol" on, say, Penny Arcade, something they are in absolutely no way affiliated with, then sticks ads all over it. Who should get the revenue, them or the comic? How will google go about monitoring this kind of thing and resolving problems?

Well, Wiki is GNU and free, so you can copy Wiki articles in to knols as long as you put the copyright notice in your knol. This is a really stupid idea because people will just copy wiki articles, written by many people, as the first approximation for their knol. So, if you want to make money off knols, write a script that copies as many Wiki articles in to knols as you can. THis will not improve the quality of information avilable.

This is potentially dangerous for freedom of information but considering how corrupt Wikipedia is I have to conclude that this is probably a good move. Wikipedia is far too powerful and is manipulated by a tiny minority with control, many of which have agendas that runs against the articles they control.

I would disagree with you if I hadn't seen it before myself. I still like Wikipedia, but I don't like the hypocrisy about how some articles get preference or deleted while others, of the same content type, do not. It's turned me off to Wikipedia in some aspects; but it's still a great place for quick references.

As for Google, I really like their page layout and view. It's a lot nicer than Wikipedia; and, like all other Google products, the search will be a lot better than Wikipedia. While I like the idea, I just doubt that it can compete with Wikipedia who has had many more years experience (unless they make sure topics are better reviewed somehow).

theyarecomingforyou said,
This is potentially dangerous for freedom of information but considering how corrupt Wikipedia is I have to conclude that this is probably a good move. Wikipedia is far too powerful and is manipulated by a tiny minority with control, many of which have agendas that runs against the articles they control.

Corrupt? Hardly.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Read up about it. There was an interesting article on The Register about it a while back.

Like The Reg is a reliable source...

M2Ys4U said,
Like The Reg is a reliable source...

Perhaps you confusing The Reg with the Inquirer or whatever that other random site is.