Knol: Google Ennui Sets In, at Least for Me
Another day, another announcement of a Google service that competes with something (or somethings) already out there, with a twist. This time, it's Google Knol, a place for experts to write authoritative articles on topics of all sorts, complete with photos, subsections, and footnotes.
At first blush, Knol sounds a lot like Wikipedia, and this screenshot looks an awful lot like it, too. But it has one significant difference: While Wikipedia is the creation of armies of creators working in anonymity or obscurity, Knol--the name means "unit of knowledge" will spotlight individual authors, let them retain ownership of their content, and divvy up any advertising revenue with them.
It sounds kind of neat, but it's impossible to render any sort of verdict on it, because it's in closed tests at the moment--and this good post by Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan says it's possible that Knol might never launch.
And that's why my initial reaction to Knol is one that surprises me: I find it tedious. I use multiple Google services every single day--so far today, I've used the search engine on both my PC and phone, GMail on both PC and phone, and Google Maps on a different PC--and usually, my ears perk up at news of new ones, since the company's batting average, while less than perfect, is pretty darn good. Even its least inspired efforts are worth checking out.
Knol comes close on the heels of the OpenSocial social application platform and Android cell-phone operating system, both of which (like Knol) aren't yet available in forms a consumer can try out. (In the past, news of new Google stuff usually meant that the results were available for immediate inspection on the Web.) Between those initiatives and umpteen other ones, the company seems to be hopping on every imaginable bandwagon. In other words, it feels like a tinge of Microsoftian me-tooism is creeping into the company's efforts. (Both OpenSocial and Android are hardly clones of something that already exists, but their uniqueness stems mostly from the fact that they're open-source projects in areas that have been extremely proprietary until now.)
And Google is better at getting things started than finishing them. Services like Google Base and Google Page Creator remain rough drafts at best, eons after they debuted. Even a company with resources as vast as Google can't do everything and do everything well.
Don't get me wrong--I remain a Google fan, and am a fan of Udi Manber, who heads up Knol and was the guy behind Amazon's A9, the most interesting search engine that never took off. So I'm willing to accept the possibility that Knol will turn out to be dynamite, assuming that it's ever released to the public at all.
But for now, my reaction to the news that Knol is in the works is an odd combination of exhaustion at trying to keep up with Google news, worry that the company is overextending itself, confusion over it drumming up publicity for something it may or may not release, and irritation that it's not more strikingly original. (It bears even more resemblance to Seth Godin's Squidoo than to Wikipedia.)
Okay, that's a more complex emotion than mere ennui. But it sure isn't the rush of excitement that news of a new Google service used to bring on...
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
Agreed! And I'm swiftly preferring yahoo mail to clunky gmail!
Not only is Knol tedius, the idea of information being published by "authorities" is against the very principle that makes wiki so great. Even if Knol were to publish "opposing view" articles, I can forsee far more mischief with this model than wiki. At least with wiki, whatever information is debated is done so anonymously. In this model, people could get hurt. Badly.
Which brings me to my final utter distaste for this idea. Wiki puts KNOWLEDGE ahead of people, not the other way around. There is far more malicious intent from "authorities" spreading their propaganda than from the supposedly evil netizen lurkers who deliberately foul up wiki.
Wiki is a true testament to the power of the web. Knol looks like just another way for Google to muscle in and make money. I thought Google's motto was not to do any harm. If this is how they go about it, they're going to have to find another motto.
Knol is much better suited to academic subjects, where the identity, repulation and pedigree of the author(s) are critical factors in determining an article's credibility. Wikipedia's anonymous, democratic modelis fine for finding out how many championships the Bulls won in the 1990s, but not for serious academic discourse. Knol is a good idea, I hope it takes off.