Comments on: Knol and void: The day I became a published Google 'expert'

Writing a knol article on Google--something akin to a Wikipedia entry--can make you feel authoritative and empowered, until someone comes along and contradicts you.

[jamalystic]

Thanks for sharing this first-hand experience. It looks lovely though from what you've just written. I've particular interest on the advertisments aspects of knol and please update us when u are able to place an AD on your knol!! Is this: Googlepedia?(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=141423&F_src=flftwo)

[MadLyb]

Sounds to me like they didn't fix any of the Wikipedia problems with integrity, other than anonymity, and just added a revenue stream.

I would have hoped for more.

[ghostofitpast]

I would put this slightly differently. They have put a Band-Aid on the problem of ANONYMITY; but the problem of ACCOUNTABILITY remains. Now we have just one more alleged information resource lacking the benefit of quality editing. Further impressions are at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/07/knol-challenge.html

[Pricey]

Sorry but...

Without going through all the hassle and wasting time stuck in knolhell I just want to say that the 1 person I ever knew that had a pitbull had major problems with it killing horses near his home...he got rid of it and who knows what it could have done to him had he kept the dog. I really hope these knols don't end up hurting good people looking for truly factual information.

[Hodmokrin]

I have known dozens of people with pitbulls, (Owning 2 myself) and every dog has its own personality (good, bad, ect.). Pitbulls get a bad rap because of the natural capability to do such damage to something or someone. You don't hear about killer chihuahuas because they aren't capable to do much. The fact is how the animal is raised has more to do with how it acts then the dna. I would be willing to bet there are more people injured by by horses every year than pitbulls, maybe people should be more careful with their horses....

[The-Fennster]

Great Article!!! I linked to this article right away... Thanks for the walkthrough and great pitbull article too!!! http://www.fennster.com

[loudbang]

The inability of others to edit out the parenthetical about Michael Vick's quarterbacking, in an article about pitbulls, highlights big flaws with knol. Wikipedia moderation might be a tad towards oppressive, but it is effective in keeping the crap out of their articles. Knol's policies will bloom a million little emperors.

[groink_hi]

Although loudbang is correct on a linear thinking way, he does actually miss one big huge point (as well as Wikipedia.) And that is the writer being able to use himself as a source. Sure, there are people who will either make up stuff or are completely wrong about something. But, in reverse, the flaw of Wikipedia is that it weighs much too much on citing resources. And that is because Wikipedia does not see itself as being a primary source but rather just a repeat of whatever is out there on the web, but then lumped all together in a single Wikipedia article. knol, rather, is a way for your to be published while not having any other published work on the web, i.e. the piece you do write is indeed a primary source. And believe it or not, blogs - especially news blogs, are just like this. So rather than saying that knol will be full of little emperors, I would twist it around and say that Wikipedia is filled with millions of dictators and bureaucrats who would rather enforce their stupid policies and guidelines than to actually make a great article. Believe or not, each of us is an expert on something; we should be able to write about it as primary sources.

[runswithscissorsXX]

after reading your knol, i'm left wondering how you can call yourself a journalist.

first : a single year since the dogs in the vick incident have been allowed to be re-introduced to society is no where near enough time to judge the situation. interview the owners of the pitbulls in five years.

second : the *only* statistic you offer is 1966-1975 attack rates? give me a break.

further : this statistic invalidates your entire article. the fci recognizes 251 dog breeds, 400 counting mixed-breeds. only two breeds, rottweilers and pitbulls, accounted for 2% of fatal dog attacks. some very simple mathematics shows that 2 breeds accounting for 2% of the attacks is *far out of proportion.* if there were 100 dog breeds, and rottweilers and pitbulls accounted for 2%, that would prove they are no more dangerous than anything else. since there are 2.5 - 4 times that amount of breeds, is shows that they are 2.5 - 4 times more likely to attack.

finally : there are 251 - 400 dog breeds. *buy a different breed.* they are *almost all as loving and affectionate as the nicest possible pitbull.* you do not *have* to own a pitbull, but doing so places the public at risk.

it is shoddy, shoddy journalism like this that's destroying this country.

[tikoro]

runswithscissorsXX:

Great...I'm going to make an educated guess that you don't actually have a job as a professional journalist considering your name contains the net infested XX in it. Yet you criticize someone else's. Then lay all the faults of our country at the feet of journalists? Yes, because nobody else is to blame...It's all a matter of the journalists. Those darn journalists that did or did not send military to Iraq, or to anywhere. Those darn journalists that decide our fiscal budget each year and when to raise or lower taxes, and what kind of healthcare reform we should consider and who should be the president, etc... Yeah..those journalists..they just have absolute power in this country...You sir/ma'am, are an idiot.

Your reply also points towards you being one of those people that bickers back and forth with others on wikipedia. Apparently since you are not able to start a flame war on the knol site, you do it here?

Owning a pit bull places the public at risk? Why? Pit bulls, along with any other domesticated breed of dog, or any other animal for that matter, rely on their treatment, training, and situation to react to life. Kind of like humans...you treat them right, they do good things. You abuse them, and you have opened up a world of options for them to become an abuser.

[runswithscissorsXX]

it was precisely shoddy journalism that allowed the idea of "WMDs exist in iraq" that began a great deal of the mess we're currently in. i certainly blame fox news for degenerating journalistic standards to the point the media has completely coddled this president every step of the way. and this article is prime fox news "material."

i have made no assumptions, whilst your reply is full of them. your post also doesn't attempt to refute my statements. it also has insults. you're also purposely twisting my words to suit your argument. i did not say "journalism like this is the only thing destroying this country." what you're doing is starting a flame war. what i did was point out tremendous flaws in her arguments.

(p.s. i abhor wikipedia. and the only reason i'm responding to this at all is because your bio shows you've made no other posts, so i will at this time make an assumption that you are elinor mills hiding behind a fake identity.)

[groink_hi]

Dude reads too many conspiracy novels. Life to him is a total sham.

[SteveCarter!]

Hi Elinor - I thought you did a great job with the article. I think one of the benefits of something like knol is that it puts a face to the content as opposed to the anonymity of a person simply adding opinions [ a bit like this really]. At least people will get a chance to evaluate the writers credentials for the material and they can decide whether it is worth reading. Interesting bit about also about Rachel Marsden, the ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

Good Work!
Steve
http://www.bestdogtrainingtips.co.uk

[f0r0ne]

I don't see this thing going too far. Knol seems to miss the aspect that has made Wikipedia work, which is the endless fussing that eventually builds pretty credible articles by many informed reader/editors. Google has to structure it so it does not incur any potential copyright, libel or other liabilities, so it has to limit itself to being a conduit only (a la YouTube), so it will not review content. Corrections by anybody else are accepted or rejected in the writer's discretion. Certainly, Google is promoting / publicizing Knol with articles by some bona fide experts (assuming their bio blurbs are true), but for an example of the future of ad hoc contributors look at the "Buttermilk Pancakes" article Google itself is featuring: "I am not a professional chef. I have, however, made thousands of pancakes. I have three boys and Sunday morning is usually pancake morning. ..." This could be anybody's blog. The article isn't subject to the vetting in cooks.com, or to any reader comments or suggestions as in lots of other recipe sites. All you get is a aggregate star rating from people who might or might not have tested the recipe or have interesting things to say about it. Beyond pancakes, the medical expertise which is heavily promoted the Google front page looks like cut/paste info from web.md, nimh, etc. All this, and then try actually searching for a topic that isn't put in front of your nose - there is no coherent way to find out if anything is or isn't covered - not even a text search, but only a title search - how many times will a reasonable user waste time drawing a blank on Knol before going back to more dependable resources.

[GeoBear2]

I think Knol is a fascinating experiment, and I predict it will be very successful. I don't know if it will topple Wikipedia, but I think it will at least become a powerful rival. Both have their pros and cons, and I think they will nicely complement each other.

I'm particularly vexed by Wikipedia's political content; it sucks, and anyone who tries to edit some of the more prominent articles quickly discovers that Wikipedia is ultimately policed by the same corporate powers that control the mainstream media. Knol offers a fresh new approach that might help renew the Internet as a mouthpiece for us little people.

There's no doubt in my mind that corporate interests will be keeping a close eye on Knol and actively striving to mold it to their interests. I just hope the general public takes enough interest to beat them on this battlefield.

David Blomstrom
Candidate for Public Office

[hotsexylegs9111!!!]

All hail the new mighty Knol, with a little knowledge and writer know how on a subject, that subject can be ?monetized with ads?. Were a bunch of egos huh? Or Google would like you to fulfill your ego of your great Knol with the prosperity of the ad. I am just waiting for the time where you go into a public place and you have to acknowledge their sponsors to talk to some one on a subject of interest(oh wait that is already reality), what?s the difference between that and a Knol. Let?s see I get on a train and say ?Sir if I acknowledge you sponsor can you give me some useful information on a subject that you feel you have researched?. The freedom of information act homepage should have google ads too. Google should make a place where you can blog, called Google Tools, where all of you can post and brag of your monetized ads?. Who decides who is the expert on a subject of a Knol? Are we supposed to accept the finality of the biggest monetized ad money maker as the final word? Can poor people make a Knol too, or is this just for people who can research?

[The_Decider]

For my needs(math, CS and engineering) Wikipedia is a very accurate resource to begin research.

What the world does not need is a poor imitation complete with ads. Another reason to ignore Google.

[RobertAPierce]

It seems to me that since the author can control edits, it's no different than a bunch of blogs put together in one place. Your article on pitbulls could be completely wrong, but since nobody can correct it, it would stay that way, and readers would be misled. (I'm not saying that's the case, your article seems fine). Someone else will then write their own knol that has different information, which again can only be edited by the author. So how's the reader supposed to know what's real and what's BS? They don't, so basically it's a bunch of blogs put together.

[sdgottlieb]

great article. thanks elinor!