[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.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
You all realize, of course, that we will be unable to prevent ignorance without thorough regulation, yes? What’s to stop terrorists from editing their own views into Wikipedia? For all we know, Osama Bin Ladin is already influencing our youth through these “open source” portholes to the internet.
Alas, we have outgrown the days of “Ignorance may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it,” (Thomas Jefferson). Now if those proponents of Darwin would stop promoting their ignorance in the scientific community and admit that the Earth is flat, we could focus our attention on getting everyone to think the right way.
Better put a smiley face on that, Ryan. Ironic humor is like high-frequency sound. It doesn’t travel far on its own and can be stopped cold by solid obstacles, like thick skulls.
I was under the impression it was supposed to be more like Squidoo than Wikipedia. Instead of focusing on the content, I understand it’s focus is more on allowing the writer to be featured and credited as a sort of expert (though we’ll have to decide for ourselves whether or not they’re an expert or not).
For example, you could write a page on fiction writing, and you could get more traffic to this blog because of it. Squidoo is cooler, though, because there’s advertising whose click-throughs can be donated to the charity of your choice.
Here’s an article comparing the two, by Seth Godin, the creator of Squidoo.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/last-week-fight.html
Google is encouraging “people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it.” That sounds like Squidoo (but as you point out, a Squidoo with features disabled). Then they muddy the waters: “A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read.” That would be awfully like Wikipedia, except, hmmm… I don’t think I’d want a knol by, say, Rush Limbaugh to be my first hit in a search for facts about the Democratic Party. And I don’t see where it couldn’t happen.
It’s hard to beat Wikipedia for quick hits of truly “fair and balanced” knowledge. Google claims Knol is all about preserving “authorship.” Again, do I want “authorship” when I’m simply searching for objectivity and accuracy? If I want the most inclusive, most accurate information available, regardless of how many authors wrote it, it’s Wikipedia that delivers just that. Google can’t compete with Wikipedia, nor can it rival Squidoo’s powerfully developed social reach–just as Google Video couldn’t hold a candle to You Tube.
Google’s solution with You Tube was to buy it. I don’t know if Seth Godin is after a buyout. What I do know about him tells me he’s got all the money he needs and would prefer to keep tweaking Google’s nose, rather surrender Squidoo for billions. The only solution left to Google, apparently, was a doomed attempt to set up shop in the middle of the road–where they are only going to get run over.
Having said all this, will I ever put upo a knol at some point? You bet! I wasn’t born yesterday: when GOOGLE says they intend for knols on a subject to be “the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read,” I know what that means. They see visions of knols dominating Google search returns–and, naturally, they have the means to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Of course, I’d vastly prefer it if they just ranked TrueVoice at the top of the list for “fiction writing,” but if it’s going to take a knol to get me there, sure, count me in!
All great comments, especially about the google ranking. LOL … I’d better get a page up on Knol!