[Caveat: on occasion, when a subject arises that affects all writers and readers. I may stray a bit from the usual meat & potatos of TrueVoice, the Blog--fiction writing and how to do it. Bear with me, folks--this stuff is important for all of us.]
Google, perpetrator of The Kindle, is great on collecting knowledge. But it’s when they give it back that they stumble.
The Kindle will flop because what it “offers” is literature policed by what I would call “knowledge control,” and anything that attaches rules and punishments to the stuff of inner life makes ordinary Americans, especially readers, uncomfortable.
Google’s announcement Thursday of a new encyclopedic knowledge site called “Knol” (hmm), intended to rival Wikipedia. But let’s face it, Knol, in concept, won’t lay a hand on Wikipedia. The moment I read Google’s announcement I knew Knol was doomed. Here’s why…
Wikipedia works because of its openness. Articles can be edited by anyone. Sounds like chaos, but in practice, many editings produce entries that are enriched by many minds, Bias, hidden political intent, etc. tend to get edited out. What you end up with is a thorough consensus view–the best form of knowledge we can have.
Knol also allows anyone to post a web page on a subject. But once it’s up, no editing is allowed (except by the author)–no matter how wrong the site’s content is. If it’s driving you crazy with inaccuracy or bias, all you can do is post your own corrective Knol page.
In other words…EQUAL TIME.
We’ve seen lately, in TV news and political coverage, how vulnerable to distortion the “equal time” concept can be when it’s wielded cynically. Flat earth believers, for example, can demand “equal time” and the networks will grant it, thus implicitly raising flat earth idiocy to “equal” status with any other idea.
Knol will never work (except maybe as a kind of mutant cross between an encyclopedia and DIGG) because people want quick hits of accurate consensus knowledge–to settle an argument, or add detail to a paper. That’s what Wikipedia provides.
What people DON’T want is to spend time sifting through a collection of squabbling web pages–Google’s brilliant idea.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
