Nicholas Carr : Rough Type, Google Knol takes aim at Wikipedia Options

[Newsfood]

Nicholas Carr : Rough Type

Google Knol takes aim at Wikipedia. December 13, 2007.

"For the past year, Chief Wikipedian Jimmy Wales has been doing a lot of trash-talking about taking on Google in the search business. Now Google's striking back."

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/12/...le_knol_tak.php

[Moulton]

Big news out of the Googleplex tonight: Google is launching what appears to be a head-on competitor to Wikipedia. The company has begun beta-testing a tool, called Knol (short for "knowledge"), that will allow people to create articles about particular subjects and post them on a set of specialized web pages hosted by Google. Each article, according to Google engineer Udi Manber, "is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read." That, obviously, perfectly describes what Wikipedia pages have become for a huge number of web searchers.

The big distinction with Wikipedia is that Knol relies on individual authors rather than "the crowd." Each article, or "knol," will be signed and owned by the person who writes it, and articles on the same subject will compete with one another for viewer's eyes. In contrast, Wikipedia builds a single version of each article in a communal way with many edits by anonymous contributors.

...

The success of Knol is, of course, far from assured, but the ability of authors to sign their names, take ownership of their work, and compete with other authors may well be a lure for many people.

Jonny, are you paying attention? This is your big window of opportunity vis-a-vis Peirce-related articles.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 14th December 2007, 11:17am

[Jonny Cache]

Big news out of the Googleplex tonight: Google is launching what appears to be a head-on competitor to Wikipedia. The company has begun beta-testing a tool, called Knol (short for "knowledge"), that will allow people to create articles about particular subjects and post them on a set of specialized web pages hosted by Google. Each article, according to Google engineer Udi Manber, "is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read". That, obviously, perfectly describes what Wikipedia pages have become for a huge number of web searchers.

The big distinction with Wikipedia is that Knol relies on individual authors rather than "the crowd". Each article, or "knol", will be signed and owned by the person who writes it, and articles on the same subject will compete with one another for viewer's eyes. In contrast, Wikipedia builds a single version of each article in a communal way with many edits by anonymous contributors. ...

The success of Knol is, of course, far from assured, but the ability of authors to sign their names, take ownership of their work, and compete with other authors may well be a lure for many people.

Jonny, are you paying attention? This is your big window of opportunity vis-a-vis Peirce-related articles.

Jonny's still workin' on that Grassy Knol joke, but Jon might look intuit.



This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 14th December 2007, 11:58am

[Daniel Brandt]

I'm no fan of Google, but this is good news. If Google is serious about this (it's difficult to distinguish Google's press hype from its market strategy), then the time to begin pinching Wikipedia's air supply in the rankings is right now. Actually, I don't mean "strangle" so much as I mean "neutralize Wikipedia's insane internal linking and treat them like a normal website."

Though it might look like "strangling" to Wikipedia, all most of us want is for Google to treat Wikipedia fairly in the rankings and give some other deserving information sites on the web a fighting chance. Now Google has its own selfish reasons to do this. It can be done slowly, but surely. Many of us know what it feels like to be on the other end of such a Googlopoly, and it will be a pleasure to watch Wikipedia squirm for a change.

[Moulton]

Google has considerably higher ethical standards than Wikipedia, which one would expect from an enterprise founded by graduates from Stanford University, where ethics are a core value.

I'd be rooting for Google, even if Wikipedia weren't such a reprehensible evil empire.

[Jonny Cache]

I'm no fan of Google, but this is good news. If Google is serious about this (it's difficult to distinguish Google's press hype from its market strategy), then the time to begin pinching Wikipedia's air supply in the rankings is right now. Actually, I don't mean "strangle" so much as I mean "neutralize Wikipedia's insane internal linking and treat them like a normal website".

Though it might look like "strangling" to Wikipedia, all most of us want is for Google to treat Wikipedia fairly in the rankings and give some other deserving information sites on the web a fighting chance. Now Google has its own selfish reasons to do this. It can be done slowly, but surely. Many of us know what it feels like to be on the other end of such a Googlopoly, and it will be a pleasure to watch Wikipedia squirm for a change.

Some old-timers who have not been too brain-damaged by Google Cum Wikipedia will remember that the "ÑØØ" system being proposed here is just the way that the Whole Web USED TO WORK BEFORE Google started Wiki-Percolating all of Wikiputia's Wiki-Putressence to the top of the lotto bowl.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 14th December 2007, 3:08pm