Robbins Library Notes

I recently received, from a family member, a link to a Slashdot.org article titled, “The Knol Hypothesis.” As I skimmed over the article, the author referenced Google’s announcement of the development of a product called the “knol.” A “knol” — what is this? A misspelling of “knoll”?

Now, generally when I hear the word “knoll,” I think of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, most of which involve a mysterious “third gunman on the grassy knoll.” This suggestion usually includes the involvement of Cuban exiles, LBJ, the CIA, the Mafia, the KGB, or some combination thereof. (For the record: I endorse none of these theories.)

All humor aside, I did not having a clue as to what a “knol” is. So, I linked over to the Google press release, where I learned the following:

Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling “knol”, which stands for a unit of knowledge. Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it. The tool is still in development and this is just the first phase of testing. For now, using it is by invitation only. But we wanted to share with everyone the basic premises and goals behind this project.

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. At the heart, a knol is just a web page; we use the word “knol” as the name of the project and as an instance of an article interchangeably. It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page. Google will provide easy-to-use tools for writing, editing, and so on, and it will provide free hosting of the content. Writers only need to write; we’ll do the rest.

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. Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content. 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. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.

As an academic librarian, this announcement got my attention quickly. Why? Because, as the Slashdot.org article notes, this Knol Project sounds a good deal like Wikipedia, though nowhere in the release does Google mention Wikipedia. Is Google trying to compete with Wikipedia? It seems that this is indeed the case, even if Google isn’t admitting it openly.

The remainder of this article looks at what might be going on here, and how Google could compete with Wikipedia, especially in terms of the quality of the knols, or, at least in the perception of quality.

Why is this article worth reading?

1. Dependency of Google & Wikipedia. For one thing, we’ve become used to, even dependent on, Google and Wikipedia, among other things, to do all sorts of academic research. research. Looking at their evolution and new products is a good way to keep on top of them.
2. Keeping Abreast of the Digital Revolution. For another, we are still in the very early stages of the digital revolution. The way that we do research, think about and organize knowledge and information is changing in ways that we can’t even imagine, and how it will all shake out in the end remains to be seen. Knol v. Wikipedia is merely one of the opening feints in this chess game.
3. Real Quality vs. Perceived Quality. Real quality vs. the perception of quality is a third matter — if Dr. Joseph Diplomamill at Podunk State University signs off on an article, does that give it more authority and quality than an unsigned Wikipedia article? There have been a number of questions raised about the quality of the articles on Wikipedia — will a knol be any improvement?
4. Quality vs. Share of Ad Revenue. Finally, the juxtaposition of knols with ad dollars raises some troubling questions: are we going to get mediocre “experts” signing off on articles cribbed from Wikipedia and other free sources just get a share of the ad revenue? (Again, we’re back to real quality vs. the perception of quality.)

I strongly recommend reading the Slashdot.org article, along with the comments following it, because I get the sense that we’re going to see a lot of more of Knol in the very near future. And when it does go live, make sure to evaluate it critically if you do use it.