I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Posted by rod@drury.net.nz in Google at 7:54 pm on Sunday, 16 December 2007
Google’s Knol experiment to rival Wikipedia?
Anyone up on Knol?
|
Going global from New Zealand |
 |
blog
At the risk of posting what everyone else is - i’m on a grassy one :)
Mind you, Australia has enough Knols, with Shannon and his brothers…
read my post Rod!
http://diversity.net.nz/google-knol-tempting-evil/2007/12/16/
from what I read knol is google’s painful abbreviation of “knowledge,” and unlike a wiki page (which is written by anonymous authors) a knol page is autonomous. in the examples I’ve seen the author of the article is identified at the top and readers can see what they look like.
Sorry Ben, only noticed you had posted after I published. Good perspective.
At the risk of adding redudancy to internet echo chamber, I’d just mention that (as usual) ReadWriteWeb (which we can claim as a local venture, right?) were onto this early on.
Most interesting was this quote.
From Ward Cunningham, [from] the Wikipedia board of advisers [had this] to say: “.. If Google intentionally diverts people from Wikipedia they would be doing a disservice to their readers. Most likely readers will have to chose between the two and Wikipedia already has a very successful brand.”
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/knol_project_google_experiment.php
Google is entitle to do what it considers profitable to its business. Phew! I have been watching Google for a few years now about their phenomenon growth rate and I knew it back then, when I first became interested in their technology, that they would be demonised at some stage by people who have got nothing to write about except to dig for sensational story to write about (be it bloggers or journalists). Google is being fast tracked in the minds of some misguided members of the general public (propelled by sensationalist bloggers and journalists) to be in par with Microsoft as the evil of the earth.
The same people who cry & yell out evil monopolist to Microsoft for a similar practice, are most likely to be the same ones that are being alarmist at Google owning web contents (knol). So, if Wikipedia is a monopolist in knowledge repository for the web, then we must all jump up and sing Joy To The World that Google is going to offer another choice and counter to the Wikipedia’s monopoly on that domain. I have noted that some people are self-contradictory, such as it is Ok for Wikipedia to be a monopolist, but not Ok for Telcom, Microsoft or Google to be monopolist. It seems to me that most people don’t use reason at all, but rather follow what others (sensationalist writers) spew out to them how evil are the big corporations of this world.
Smoothspan’s opinion must be dismissed as alarmist, because this is the sort of sensational story that prompts politicians to draft legislations to muzzle (anti-trust law) the business conducts of the businessmen of this world (Rockerfellas, Bill Gates, Page&Brin), in which they (politicians & the state) have no rights whatsoever to do so against private enterprises.
It is time that we say nice things about our most productive members of the global society (be it Google, IBM, Microsoft, Telecom) to thank them for giving us technology that we enjoy today, rather than bashing them as evil empires. Without these innovators, today’s technology would still be comparable to that of a century ago. But we do know that today’s technology is far more advanced than those in 100 years ago and thanks to the innovators of this world as I have listed above.
The solution is easy. If people are being alarmed at Google for starting Knol, and since Google doesn’t hold a gun to their heads to force them to use Google search engine, then perhaps they should start using Microsoft’s search engine or Yahoo, because those 2 vendors are keen to topple Google from the number one spot.
Wiki sounds cool. Knol sounds kinda silly.
Small things like this often make a difference …
Falafulu Fisi wrote:
> I have noted that some people are self-contradictory,
> such as it is Ok for Wikipedia to be a monopolist, but not
> OK for Telecom, Microsoft or Google …
I think competition is generally good, and Wikipedia probably too dominant but there are in fact a couple of real differences between Wikipedia and Google.
1. Offering Google Knol and putting it in the search results is analogous to Microsoft offering Office for the Windows platform. Sure, anyone can compete with Office, but Microsoft has a natural advantage (as will Google). The problem is not that in itself, but rather that potentially ‘better’ competitors to Wikipedia than Knol will fail (or not even try) because of the unfair playing field.
2. Wikipedia content is licensed under an open license (GFDL). Knol is not.
On the other hand, Google will make money from ads on Knol content - and then pass that on to the contributers. It will be interesting to see whether contributors prefer sanctimony or cold just the cash, thanks Ma’am.
3. Google’s (informal) slogan is ‘Don’t be evil’. Unlike Microsoft they gain some competitive advantage from this very positive public image that goes with that. The flip side to that, though, is that they cannot complain if the public tries to hold them to it and complains if they think they are stepping over the boundary.
—
I’m not necessarily against Knol.. it will all depend on the how its done.
Some more links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/a-few-thoughts-on-google-knol/
PS Why am I writing this essay in here rather than on my own blog where I can get paid? ;-)
Miles said…
1. Offering Google Knol and putting it in the search results is analogous to Microsoft offering Office for the Windows platform.
And who’s property is the Google’s search engine anyway? And what is wrong if Microsoft is offering Office for the Windows platform? Again, who’s property is Office & Windows? If you can answer the 2 questions above, then there is nothing further to be debated here, since the answer is quite clear cut. It is either a yes or no. It is entirely the decision of the property owners that must be protected here (Google, Microsoft, Telecom, IBM, etc,…). It is not the wish of others (you, me, the state or anyone else), who have no legitimate rights to have a say of what those property owners can or can’t do with what is theirs.
Miles said…
The problem is not that in itself, but rather that potentially ‘better’ competitors to Wikipedia than Knol will fail (or not even try) because of the unfair playing field.
There is no such thing as unfair playing field in the free market. There is only better & worse competitors and this is an undeniable fact. The only unfair playing field that is taking place in the market , is when the worse competitors lobby the state authority to put a restraint (via legislation) to those of the better competitors. Again, this is an undeniable fact, just look at what the anti-trust laws has done in the US (Rockefellas, IBM, Microsoft) and Telecom here in NZ.
Miles said…
2. Wikipedia content is licensed under an open license (GFDL). Knol is not.
I don’t see any problem here. Open license or not. If I am still able to get access to the content, then what is the big fuss?
On the other hand, Google will make money from ads on Knol content - and then pass that on to the contributers?
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Contributors want cash for attracting readers to the ads appeared on their pages. Google is already doing this with bloggers.
Miles said…
Google’s (informal) slogan is ‘Don’t be evil’.
Yes, they have stayed true to that, haven’t they? Unless, you buy in to these usual corporate bashing , ie, big corporations are evil. If you think otherwise that Google haven’t stayed true to that slogan, then perhaps, you can give some examples of why they (Google) is evil then?
Miles said…
The flip side to that, though, is that they cannot complain if the public tries to hold them to it and complains if they think they are stepping over the boundary.
You’re not arguing that you (the internet user) have a birth right to what services Google can or can’t offer? You (the internet user or anyone else), do have a free-choice to either use Google or don’t use it, and that’s simple. There is no such thing as a boundary for Google to watch out not to overstep. The only boundary that exists is an imaginary one that is wished by others on what Google should do, simply because they don’t like what Google is doing. Google has no obligation to meet the wishes of those detractors, since those wishes are irrelevant to the running their day to day business. This means that there is no boundary at all. Google (or any other business) is not there in the first place to be Santa Claus (ie to implement the wishes of it’s detractors), but solely exist to make profitable trading.
Knol doesn’t seem to be the same model as Wikipedia. They seem to be working on a basis of authored articles with some sort of reputation system (e.g. the sample article was by an academic in the field).
How much coverage they will get through this remains to be seen? Real experts usually have better things to do than write web articles for pennies.
There is a synergy between Google’s text processing technology and an encylopaedia-style resource. It should become possible in the future to perform a degree of automated quality checking and validating articles against their references.
Google has had plenty of opportunity to manipulate search results to their own advantage, and to my knowledge never have. Why are we concerned that will be any different with Knol?
It is time that we say nice things about our most productive members of the global society (be it Google, IBM, Microsoft, Telecom) to thank them for giving us technology that we enjoy today, rather than bashing them as evil empires.
And here is some nice words to Google founders & entrepreneurs like them (Rod you’re included, since article is about producers like you).
At Christmas, thank the producers
The article I referenced above, links to the following:
Entrepreneurship and Social Progress
Falafulu, thanks for providing the link to the article on Entrepreneurship and Social Progress. It seemed rather black and white in the way it pitted entrepreneurs against a supposed anti-capitalist conspiracy.
Entrepreneurship and economic development are certainly the creative source of new wealth and should be encouraged (unless there is risk of moral or environmental harm). Furthermore, in my opinion it is entirely possible to be a capitalist and have a social conscience.
But, monopolies are just wrong and might isn’t always right. As consumers we certainly should question the motives of the Microsofts and Googles (and Telecoms) of this world.