Knol launches onto the world
Google has just launched Knol: a unit of knowledge onto the world - it's previously been invitation only. It's their attempt to take on the likes of Wikipedia and Britannica, by inviting people to submit articles on subjects close to their hearts. Other people may make changes, but these have to be authorised by the original author. There are a number of Knols already available, but from a quick look I'd estimate there are about 400. The vast majority of the articles written are currently in the medical field - I'd say in excess of 80% The others are a fairly odd mix - highlighted on the home page are articles on 'How to backpack' and 'Toilet clogs' which seems slightly unusual articles to focus on at the launch but maybe that's just me.
Articles vary - in length, authority and linguistic ability. Another featured Knol on the homepage informs me that 'Tooth pain is generally felt as a sharp or aching pain in or around a tooth.' Well, yes. Some knols are written by apparent experts - I say apparent because while there are biographical notes about some (but not all) authors they seem to be self created. Other biographies have been left blank.
The layout of articles is good - title, sub heading, author, article rating, description, alternative titles, revision history, contents list, reviews and so on. Adverts that accompany each article are over on the right hand side and are reasonably unobtrusive - authors take a percentage of the revenue made. This may go some way to explaining why there are so many medical knols, given that the advertisements are going to make reasonable sums of money. I suspect this is going to bias the type of articles that are written - unlike Wikipedia and Britannica where people write about subjects they are passionate about, I think a fairly large proportion of Knol authors will have monetary gain on their minds. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a potential bias that users should be aware of.
Setting up a knol is very simple, and looks rather like the screen you get when writing a document in Google docs. Articles are created into one of three Creative Commons licenses. Currently it's not possible to embed video, which is a drawback and slightly odd, given the Google/YouTube love fest, but I expect this will change in time.
Is it worth using at the moment? In my opinion it's not. While I'm pretty sure that the authors are who they say they are if I'm dealing with anything that's medical I'd prefer to use more authoritative sources, and if it's something else then I'd probably go to a website - there's a nice article on what to do in Singapore for example, but I think I'd get as good if not more information at an official tourist board site. Of course, there's also the problem that it's not very big yet, so I'm unlikely to find the information that I want. This will change over time however, so that's not a fair criticism, though accurate in the short term. However, Knol is worth keeping tabs on to see how it grows in the future.
Other articles on Knol that you may wish to check out are at
ReadWriteWeb
C|Net
TechCrunch
Articles vary - in length, authority and linguistic ability. Another featured Knol on the homepage informs me that 'Tooth pain is generally felt as a sharp or aching pain in or around a tooth.' Well, yes. Some knols are written by apparent experts - I say apparent because while there are biographical notes about some (but not all) authors they seem to be self created. Other biographies have been left blank.
The layout of articles is good - title, sub heading, author, article rating, description, alternative titles, revision history, contents list, reviews and so on. Adverts that accompany each article are over on the right hand side and are reasonably unobtrusive - authors take a percentage of the revenue made. This may go some way to explaining why there are so many medical knols, given that the advertisements are going to make reasonable sums of money. I suspect this is going to bias the type of articles that are written - unlike Wikipedia and Britannica where people write about subjects they are passionate about, I think a fairly large proportion of Knol authors will have monetary gain on their minds. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a potential bias that users should be aware of.
Setting up a knol is very simple, and looks rather like the screen you get when writing a document in Google docs. Articles are created into one of three Creative Commons licenses. Currently it's not possible to embed video, which is a drawback and slightly odd, given the Google/YouTube love fest, but I expect this will change in time.
Is it worth using at the moment? In my opinion it's not. While I'm pretty sure that the authors are who they say they are if I'm dealing with anything that's medical I'd prefer to use more authoritative sources, and if it's something else then I'd probably go to a website - there's a nice article on what to do in Singapore for example, but I think I'd get as good if not more information at an official tourist board site. Of course, there's also the problem that it's not very big yet, so I'm unlikely to find the information that I want. This will change over time however, so that's not a fair criticism, though accurate in the short term. However, Knol is worth keeping tabs on to see how it grows in the future.
Other articles on Knol that you may wish to check out are at
ReadWriteWeb
C|Net
TechCrunch
![](http://<A HREF="http://groups.google.com/group/britlibblogs"><IMG SRC="http://www.essextherapies.com/images/blb.gif){kind=link}
Comments