'wikipedia'에 해당되는 글 2건
- 2008/07/24
- 2008/07/07
Google just opened up Knol, its Wikipedia competitor, to the public after announcing a private beta of the service last December. Unlike Wikipedia, Knol puts a stronger emphasis on authorship and even encourages users to start different 'knols' for the same subject. Google is also serving up AdSense advertising on the site, whereas Wikipedia stays away from any advertising on its site.
In many respects, Knol is similar to Jason Calacanis' Mahalo, though its scope seems even more ambitious and its tools a bit more refined. It does, however, validate the Mahalo model.
Knol puts a lot of emphasis on authorship and, somewhat akin to Amazon's "Real Name" scheme, authors can validate their identity on Knol through either a credit card or phone number.

The default setting for every Knol is "moderated collaboration." In this mode, anybody with a Google account can suggest changes to an knol, but the author has to accept these changes before they go live.
Authors can also invite others to contribute to their articles and given them the same rights as the original author.
There is also an option for authors to write a short bio of themselves in Knol. While this is interesting here, it will be even more interesting to see if Google might start sharing these Knol identities (and maybe even the users' reputation) among more of its properties.
Setting up a Knol is as easy as clicking the "Write a Knol" button. The text editor, too, is pretty straightforward, especially in the face of the often cryptic mark-up language most wikis use.
Knol uses a rich text editor, which presents users with all the typical editing functions, including basic formatting options, links (all set to 'nonfollow'), and the ability to add references.

As of now, you can not embed any videos or other content, except for the New Yorker Cartoons that Google incensed for this project for reasons only Google knows.
Users who don't want to write their own articles can review and rate knols. There is also an option to leave comments on every knol.
Users can choose between three licenses for their articles, the Creative Commons Attribution License, the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, and an "All Rights Reserved" license. The Attribution license is the default setting. Users can chose a different license for every knol.
Authors on Knol can enter their AdSense data into Knol. Besides the cut Google already takes from the advertising through AdSense anyway, authors will get the regular AdSense payout for every click on an ad. This seems like a smart way to reward users who write the best (or most popular) content, while still making money for Google.
In the competition with Wikipedia, this might mean that some authors could divert their attention from editing Wikipedia articles to Knol. However, the question will also be if spammers can find a way of abusing this.

While there is no option to embed any videos or other content into the site, authors can embed cartoons from the New Yorker. This is done through a rather cumbersome process where users have to first search for a cartoon in the New Yorker store and then enter the ID number of the cartoon into Knol. Why Google chose the New Yorker's cartoon archive for this is anybody's guess, but chances are that Google will announce more content partnerships in the near future.
Given how often Wikipedia results appear as Google's top results, it would make sense for Google to look at this and decide to start its own competitor. By incentivizing authors through AdSense and by giving its users simple, but powerful tools to start their articles, Google might just be on the right track. While Google keeps reiterating that Knol is not meant to compete with Wikipedia, it's hard to see how that wouldn't be the case.
Knol, of course, has far fewer articles now than Wikipedia, but as it grows, it will be interesting to watch if Google is going to give preference to its own pages over the Wikipedia results. After all, Knol carries Google advertising and Wikipedia doesn't, so Google would clearly have an incentive in doing so, though the potential public outcry if Google would try to do this might prevent them from even attempting it.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4511
Wikipedia has revolutionized the world by decentralizing information. For individualists, wikipedia embodies the inherent success of individualism. For those whom fear decentralization, wikipedia embodies the growing lawlessness. This is truly a matter of perspective and interpretation. Yet I still believe that the fears of wikipedia are inflated. Allow me to elaborate.
Central Charges Against Wikipedia
The central charge against the open-source editing of wikipedia is the potential of inaccurate information. While it is true that there is potential, having potential does not inherently mean Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies. Any vandalism that occurs is quickly removed and pointed out.
In 2006 for example, staffers for Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) and officials from the National Institute on Drug Abuse were removing criticism from their respective wikipedia articles. When the articles were fixed, more criticism was included, this time pointing out their attempts at removal of criticism.
In another case of vandalism, someone continually replaces George W. Bush’s photograph with a picture of a giant penis; however, it is continually corrected in less than five minutes. Meanwhile, more subtle vandalism is repaired in a few hours (still remarkably quick compared to a normal encyclopedia that has to issue a correction in another book, often never obtained by owners of the encyclopedia).
If you still have doubts, consider than in 2005 the journal Nature compared scientific articles in wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica for accuracy. Each article was sent to panels of experts in the appropriate field. The average number of errors for each wikipedia article was four parts per entry, only one behind Encyclopedia Britannica’s average of three parts per entry. Then consider the amount of articles each contains. Wikipedia boasts 1.7 million English articles, with 6 million total; Encyclopedia Britannica does not even approach 100,000. That is quite good accuracy for the volume of articles produced.
Wikipedia's Secret to Success
What is wikipedia’s secret to success? They have formed an individualistic community where anyone can edit any article.
What prevents the majority of people from intentionally sabotaging the project to promote their ideological views? A market-based system of reputation. When you post quality information, the community praises you; when you post inaccurate information, you are shamed. As a result, wikipedians strive to produce quality articles.
Wales, the founder, has a laissez faire philosophy on regulation. The community works out its own issues. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers have found a compromise on the wording of the abortion article; mainland Chinese and Taiwanese have done the same.
In fact, when the Chinese government censored wikipedia and demanded censorship, Wales let the Chinese contributors handle it. After all, it was against wikipedia’s philosophy (besides being impractical) to censor information when it could be easy re-added. Eventually, China uneasily unblocked wikipedia. Another case of the individuals solving the problem themselves instead of using regulation.
Wikipedia continues striving to form an individualistic community where diverse viewpoints are respected as each side works toward mutual compromise in creating a neutral article.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
We can see where this wouldn't quite go head to head competition wise with Wikipedia. It seems it has a different objective in terms of authorship which pretty much makes the site much differant than wikipedia.
Posted by: Nick Stamoulis | July 23, 2008 12:59 PM
...man, these guys are greedy.
Posted by: chris | July 23, 2008 2:16 PM
I work for HubPages.com, a prominent user-generated content site with an AdSense revenue share program that is probably more similar to Knol than Wikipedia is. Spam and inappropriate content are always a problem for sites like ours, and we're extremely interested in how Google will handle the moderation issue. They're probably also going to have to find a way to make content easier to find (we use keyword tags to help visitors locate what they're looking for more easily), and ensure that good content bubbles to the top in searches.
Over at HubPages we have HubScore and an efficient flagging system to this effect, but at least on Blogger, Google hasn't shown a great track record for eliminating splogs and bad content.
We'll be watching with interest.
Posted by: Maddie Ruud | July 23, 2008 3:07 PM
If anyone is interested in purchasing www.oondi.com which is a website similar to Google Knol, send an e-mail to info [AT] oondi [DOT] com. The time is now for these types of websites; the business model has just been validated. oondi.com also focuses towards other languages such as Dutch and French, which is unique in comparison to Squidoo, HubPages, Google Knol, etc...
Posted by: Ken | July 23, 2008 3:28 PM