Back in DecemÂber 2007, I made a bet against Google Knol, the search giant’s answer to Wikipedia. In a fairÂly involved piece, I listÂed three reaÂsons why Knol wouldÂn’t upend Wikipedia. Now fast forÂward 18+ months: Tech Crunch has reportÂed that Knol’s trafÂfic is trendÂing down. It peaked in FebÂruÂary at around 320,000 visÂiÂtors per month, accordÂing to QuantÂcast estiÂmates. Now it’s at around 174,000. (See the graph here.) The botÂtom line? You can’t win at everyÂthing. But forÂtuÂnateÂly there’s some good new things comÂing out of Google, and we’ll be menÂtionÂing them in the comÂing days.
A LifeÂhackÂer post remindÂed me to spread the word about the newish mobile verÂsion of Wikipedia. SimÂply bookÂmark this page (mobile.wikipedia.org) on your wireÂless device, and you can then research all of your quesÂtions on the fly. When did the French finalÂly get rid of RobeÂspierre? What’s the gist of EinÂstein’s speÂcial theÂoÂry of relÂaÂtivÂiÂty? Where is Bhutan? You can figÂure it all out wherÂevÂer you are.
I’m not sure how this mobile page looks on varÂiÂous mobile devices. But I can report that it looks a‑ok on the iPhone. iPhone users can also use the new Wikipedia Mobile app that’s now availÂable in the iTunes store.
The ChronÂiÂcle of HighÂer EduÂcaÂtion is runÂning a new piece (where I hapÂpen to get a small blurb) on Google’s Knol, askÂing what it will mean for stuÂdents and proÂfesÂsors. But it also deals, at least indiÂrectÂly, with anothÂer quesÂtion: Is Knol realÂly intendÂed to comÂpete with Wikipedia?
When the conÂtent iniÂtiaÂtive was first announced, many assumed that this was Google’s way of tryÂing to disÂplace Wikipedia, whose links appear first in Google search results 25% of the time. But the comÂpaÂny has since made it clear that they’re not tryÂing to offer anothÂer encyÂcloÂpeÂdia. Rather, they’re simÂply offerÂing a platÂform for experts to write about whatÂevÂer they know. That could include entries on RatioÂnalÂism, the stuff you’d expect to find in a traÂdiÂtionÂal encyÂcloÂpeÂdia. But it also includes entries on how to orgaÂnize your home in 15 minÂutes or less, or thoughts on whether peoÂple realÂly go to heavÂen when they die. You can browse the range of entries here.
This approach makes Knol at once more expanÂsive than Wikipedia and more difÂfiÂcult to get your arms around. By lackÂing a focus, Knol is a litÂtle slipÂpery. As a readÂer, you’re not sure what you’ll get at Knol (acaÂdÂeÂmÂic conÂtent? recipes? how-to artiÂcles? medÂical inforÂmaÂtion?). And, as a potenÂtial writer, you’re not sure what kind of largÂer body of inforÂmaÂtion you’re conÂtributÂing to — someÂthing that seems imporÂtant for inspirÂing mass colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion. This is not to say that Knol won’t yield a good amount of useÂful conÂtent. It probÂaÂbly will. But will it all hang togethÂer, and will it all conÂtribute to anothÂer jugÂgerÂnaut Google prodÂuct? Well, I’m less sure about that. If you disÂagree, feel free to make your case in the comÂments below.
Here is JimÂmy Wales, WikipediÂa’s founder, being interÂviewed after Google debuted Knol. InterÂestÂing that his first thought is that users should copy Knol conÂtent and bring it to Wikipedia … :
As we menÂtioned in our iniÂtial piece, Knol caters to the indiÂvidÂual author/expert, not to the wisÂdom of crowds (Ă la Wikipedia). Each encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entry is genÂerÂalÂly writÂten, editÂed, and revised by one indiÂvidÂual. The author reigns supreme here. But that doesÂn’t mean that WikipediÂa’s colÂlabÂoÂraÂtive approach is being entireÂly abanÂdoned.
Google’s modÂel leaves ample room for colÂlabÂoÂraÂtive writÂing. It keeps open the posÂsiÂbilÂiÂty that mulÂtiÂple authors will write an encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entry. And, they allow for “modÂerÂatÂed colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion” — meanÂing that “any readÂer can make sugÂgestÂed edits to a knol which the author may then choose to accept, reject, or modÂiÂfy before these conÂtriÂbuÂtions become visÂiÂble to the pubÂlic.” ColÂlabÂoÂraÂtion is built into Google’s modÂel. It’s just not takÂen to an extreme conÂcluÂsion. (Get more info on the posiÂtionÂing of Knol here.)
Knol is not the only conÂtent platÂform tryÂing to strike a balÂance between the author and mass colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion. In June, EncyÂcloÂpeÂdia BriÂtanÂniÂca launched a beta of a new online encyÂcloÂpeÂdia that takes “a colÂlabÂoÂraÂtive-but-not-demoÂcÂraÂtÂic approach” to proÂducÂing knowlÂedge. Users can make conÂtriÂbuÂtions to a growÂing storeÂhouse of knowlÂedge. But whether these conÂtriÂbuÂtions get acceptÂed remains up to the experts and ediÂtors. (“At the new BriÂtanÂniÂca site, we will welÂcome and facilÂiÂtate the increased parÂticÂiÂpaÂtion of our conÂtribÂuÂtors, scholÂars, and regÂuÂlar users, but we will conÂtinÂue to accept all responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty of what we write under our name. We are not abdiÂcatÂing our responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty as pubÂlishÂers or buryÂing it under the now-fashÂionÂable “wisÂdom of the crowds.”)
I have litÂtle doubt that the Google and BriÂtanÂniÂca modÂels will genÂerÂate some solÂid encyÂcloÂpeÂdia entries. That’s a safe bet. But whether these encyÂcloÂpeÂdias will ever become as comÂpreÂhenÂsive as Wikipedia, or as wideÂly used, is anothÂer quesÂtion. And the same holds true for whether the conÂtent will genÂerÂalÂly be qualÂiÂtaÂtiveÂly betÂter than what Wikipedia has to offer. When Google first announced Knol last DecemÂber, I voiced my doubts. Now that the rubÂber is finalÂly hitÂting the road, we can see whether my skepÂtiÂcism is warÂrantÂed (or not).
Last week, the venÂerÂaÂble EncyÂclopaeÂdia BriÂtanÂniÂca gave into the presÂsure creÂatÂed by Wikipedia when it announced that it is triÂalling a new serÂvice (see the beta site here) that will let the pubÂlic write and edit artiÂcles. The difÂferÂence, howÂevÂer, is that BriÂtanÂniÂca’s modÂel won’t be demoÂcÂraÂtÂic (not all can parÂticÂiÂpate) and its ediÂtoÂrÂiÂal staff will enforce highÂer stanÂdards. Or, as the announceÂment put it, “we will welÂcome and facilÂiÂtate the increased parÂticÂiÂpaÂtion of our conÂtribÂuÂtors, scholÂars, and regÂuÂlar users, but we will conÂtinÂue to accept all responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty of what we write under our name. We are not abdiÂcatÂing our responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty as pubÂlishÂers or buryÂing it under the now-fashÂionÂable wisÂdom of the crowds.”
This experÂiÂment with colÂlabÂoÂraÂtive authorÂing may — or may not — yield a betÂter encyÂcloÂpeÂdia (although some experts have quesÂtioned whether the genÂerÂal BriÂtanÂniÂca modÂel has any inherÂent advanÂtages). It’s hard to know how things will turn out. But what’s more readÂiÂly clear is the speed with which the 240 year-old EncyÂclopaeÂdia BriÂtanÂniÂca got outÂflanked by Wikipedia, born just sevÂen years ago. We have seen this sceÂnario played out over and over again. But it nevÂer ceasÂes to amaze. The traÂdiÂtionÂal instiÂtuÂtions, just when they seem as perÂmaÂnent as things can get, sudÂdenÂly get upendÂed. And, they don’t see it comÂing. Caught flatÂfootÂed, they try to adapt, usuÂalÂly by adoptÂing the methÂods used by their comÂpetiÂtor. But it’s mostÂly too late, and the real game is over.
BriÂtanÂniÂca may stick around. But will this genÂerÂaÂtion of chilÂdren — or the next — grow up thinkÂing of BriÂtanÂniÂca as the default research resource? A quesÂtion that I’ll leave to you to answer.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.