Yep - bad name, I don't see this as a Wikipedia competitor so much as a Squidoo about.com/stumble upon mashup kinda thing. I don't understand why they're trying this considering how Google Answers tanked. Personally, I find that the law of averages works out (someone will usually fix or at least discuss weird content) better than 'invited experts'. I've read some ridiculous crap spouted by 'experts' both self-proclaimed and well known.

mahalie

They picked a bad name....... it sounds stupid.

But whatever, I thought Wii was silly too....

HaloZero

I say why not! But the name, haha. In Dutch, knol is a pejorative name for a horse, and it also means turnip or lump. It just sounds wrong to me XD

Greet

It has already been done. Urbandictionary.com has this exact model! :).

thenickdude

Personally I can't see how Knols would compete with an already established authority like wikipedia. I'm a student, and I know it's naughty, but I turn to Wikipedia before an encyclopaedia or JSTOR and Google admittedly do have a monopoly on my life (gmail, reader, language tools and search all spring to mind) but in terms of quick, dirty facts I'm sticking to the mighty wikipedia, but trust me, I won't be citing it ;)

blackheart-uk

I like the idea. I think it would compliment, not replace, Wikipedia, since both approaches lend themselves to a different depth and quality of information. They'll also miss out on one of the most entertaining parts of Wikipedia - the discussion forums.

Russkiejedi

I see this as a Squidoo competitor. I gather that they are reaching out to book authors, via publishers who are signed up with Google Book Search, to populate the initial pool of articles.

feld-a-mundo

Google's always said they're not in the content business, yet with Google Base, and now this, they're getting there. Yes, it's "user-generated content," and they swear there will be no human editors at Google determining authority (the gods forbid!), but this is a huge move towards content hosting and publication.

Also, I find the emphasis on the author of the knol on-page very interesting. Something I bet Wikipedia could benefit from.

Gina Trapani, Lifehacker Editor

about.com

cframpton

Sounds like a cross between Wikipedia and /. (SlashDot)
--Eric Swanson

ericis

sounds reminiscent of [everything2.com]
except it's all up-to-date, web 2.0, googled up
and e2 had a good chunk of fiction work

actually, doesn't sound very much like e2 at all, now that I think about it.

zikman

Interesting approach, which may work better for short definition-type entries than longer Wikipedia "everything and the kitchen sink" on a particular topic ... regardless of the merit (or not) of its approach, it's got a LOT of catching up to do to be anywhere near as ubiquitous or comprehensive as Wikipedia.

emmzee

I think it's a clever idea. Google's way will draw in more authoritative people due to the emphasis on identifying the author and their credentials, as opposed to Wikipedia which has no real pragmatic reason for experts to contribute. Wiki is broad, and has many well-researched articles, but I expect Google's version to have more concentrated information.

Jordan117

Given the hole Wikipedia admins have been digging for themselves, and given the blind spots that have always existed in that project, I'd be happy to see an accessible but credible alternative. Thing is, the Google project sounds like it will set the content by what some editor thinks should be present rather than by what an inspired amateur thinks. Wikipedia would still be the site of choice for eclectic information - if they don't censor it out of existence.

e-tat

in theory, this youtube video pretty much sums up my opinion. [ [youtube.com] ] I do admit, google does seem to have a "monopoly" on pretty much all the other digital parts of my life.

nameauser

@RUSSKIEJEDI:

Actually, I think Google would have a better shot at nailing the discussion aspect than Wikipedia would. Wikipedia's "Talk" pages are explicitly forbidden from being used for general discussion about the topic, and are reserved for debate and conflict resolution over technical details on the format and content of the article.

It would be great if you could go to any Wiki page and have it supplemented with an ongoing conversation about the topic, but most of what you see are petty arguments about a date of birth or whether this or that paragraph is "encyclopedic".

Google, OTOH, is making a point to offer both feedback *and* discussion functions, which would enrich the topics significantly, in my view.

Jordan117

I think their take on it is just different enough to make it a useful addition. Having a single author for each article might mean that each article will flow better, be better written and be allowed to be contentious.
I am dubious about the claim that this will share knowledge - it's a grander claim that just saying it will share information - but knowledge management research has shown that attaching information to an author and sharing author identity makes other more likely to respect and re-use it.
It's not likely to lead to as broad a coverage as Wikipedia but might lead to more thoughtful pieces in the areas that it does tackle.

blinkie

It's Google Knols. A knol (singular form) is an article unit. They are going for a "pixel"-like terminology. "Knowledge element."

Ugly name, if you ask me...

Bassem B.

I don't understand the decision to limit one author per subject, if you are not going to exercise editorial control.

All of the other Google products are based on the premise that what you need to know is scattered throughout the cloud. But now there is only one person on the planet who is qualified to submit a knol on a topic? Really?

I also agree that About.com is the closest existing analogy, though there is an element of Million Dollar Wiki as well. Everyone who optimizes keyword search results for a living is going down the list trying to figure out how to snag an invite.

davidsmith

isn't this the way urbandictionary.com works? The wiki method is so much simpler, it would be a pain to make revisions to articles this way.

ankeet

Psyched about the dialog (and yes I'm a Google fan/user) but with Wikipedia, Answers.com, (About.com, Refdesk.com, Howstuffworks.com), giving Google this one seems almost foolish. OK, file my comment under privacy and lets get back on subject.

m.c.cookie

Doesn't the color coded page tool that was developed for wikipedia do something similar?

[lifehacker.com]

Provide a visual "trust metric" indicator for content contributors, I mean. So if that works, Google may not need to limit themselves to invited authors.

And then there's the Citizendium project, started by a Wikipedia cofounder:
[en.citizendium.org]
Intro article: [arstechnica.com]
Longer article: [arstechnica.com]

mb

If they can figure a way to "legitimize" the review process, this content publishing application has the potential to undermine current scientific journals. Revenue directly to the author, high exposure, a peer-review process without the politics inherent in today's system, and legitimacy are a difficult combination to overcome. The existing journal paradigm is very limited, slow, and fraught with agendas. This may be a way to break out.

david7s

I actually like the name, "knol". Sounds like a slang for "know". I been going to school for so long I have actually forgotten how many years, but none of those years have I ever consulted Wikipidea. The reason being that I didn't trust whatever was written there. I do, however, trust Google, with everything of my digital life, e.g. email, reader, docs, base, etc. etc. so I think I'd trust Knol more than Wiki!

junonino