Hoping to loosen Wikipedia’s tenacious grip on the Online reference market, Google is reportedly developing an experimental information service called Knol (short for “knowledge”). The site, not yet publicly available, would allow individuals to create Web pages on virtually any topic. Unlike Wikipedia, however, only a single author (who would be identified) would be able to author/edit a page, and competing entries would be allowed on the same topic. The service would also feature reader comments, ratings, and suggested changes by users. Knol would also feature Google Ads on topic pages (with the approval of the page authors who would share in the revenues). Wikipedia currently features no ads.
(A screenshot of a sample Knol entry. Click on image for full view.)
Before it is even released, however, Knol is raising concerns among Web publishers who see a fundamental conflict of interest between Google as a search engine and, increasingly, as a provider of Web content and advertising. Their chief concern is the potential for the search giant to privilege its own content and services over those of its competitors by ranking them higher in their search results. The concern of this post, however, is to examine the viability of Knol as a source of accurate information for researchers. In particular, it will examine the implications of highlighting individual authors/editors, having competing pages on the same topic, and sharing ad revenue with Knol authors.
Wikipedia’s crowdsourcing model has kept most authors honest and most entries fairly accurate. The wiki platform and general anonymity of its authorship have helped to make the entries themselves rather than their authors the primary focus of the site. The downside, of course, is that it is often difficult to know who has contributed to specific entries, their relative expertise in the field, their political agendas, special interests, etc. Instances of corporations editing out unflattering descriptions, contributions submitted by bogus “experts,” and inaccuracies of all shapes and sizes have been clearly documented. Still, despite its imperfections, million of avid Wikipedia users believe that its virtues outweigh its deficiencies.
Google’s Knol, on the other hand, takes a radically different, almost regressive approach to generating and organizing encyclopedic knowledge. It rejects the Web 2.0 mantra of open sharing and collaboration in favor of a more traditional model based on clearly identifiable subject specialists. This system of highlighting authors would enable readers to more easily quantify the accuracy of the information presented and the relative expertise of the “experts.” However, personal identification might also create a competitive atmosphere where authors on the same topic compete for “clicks,” not only to satisfy their egos, but for profitability as well. Given Google’s scheme to share ad revenues with authors who opt to have ads posted on their pages, it is not difficult to imagine some authors becoming more interested in generating revenue than providing accurate information in order to get more hits. Example: an author writing on kayaking lists the “best” kayak brands that you should consider buying–you know, the ones that have ads on the page that he/she profits from when you click on them.
Another potential side effect of allowing Knol authors to publish competing pages on the same topic is that it might confuse researchers who might not know which entry is more accurate. Some users may be drawn to pages that are longer or that provide more Web links or bibliography, but these may not necessarily indicate accuracy. Although ratings and comments will reportedly be built into the system, these can only provide a general indication of quality since they depend on the feedback of non-experts.
Google has thrived (and continues to thrive) on its reputation for providing great, objective search results. If Knol is deemed by users as primarily a scheme to grab market share from Wikipedia and to expand ad revenue, chances are that its appeal will not approach that of a non-commercial alternative based on the collective wisdom of the masses. That said, if Google is able to quickly recruit top experts in a wide variety of fields and generate a broad enough range of content where major gaps are not immediately apparent (no small feat!), then users might be willing to overlook things like ads (as they have done with Gmail) and Wikipedia may finally have a competitor in the area of Web reference.
