• On MovieTome: See the TRAILER for TERMINATOR 4!
July 25, 2008 12:00 PM PDT

Knol and void: The day I became a published Google 'expert'

I'm an expert on pit bulls! Really.

I just wrote a knol, a Web article akin to an encyclopedia entry, using Google's new Knol publishing platform launched publicly on Wednesday.

With Knol, Google is encouraging people to create more authoritative content that can be indexed by its search engine and monetized with ads. Unlike blogs, which tend to be casual and opinionated in tone, knols are supposed to be fact-based, informative, and well-sourced articles on a specific subject.

The author's knol on pit bulls.

Google is dismissing the notion that Knol is its Wikipedia killer, but both operate under the premise that Web users can collectively create a knowledge base that can be searchable and vast.

The difference is that while anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, which can lead to pages and pages of edits and contradictory revisions and accusations of bias, knols have an author's name attached. A knol author is responsible for the content and can choose to allow others to edit it, or filter suggested edits or even block public editing entirely.

I decided to try Knol out. First I had to figure out a subject I felt I knew enough about. I walk dogs as a volunteer at the local animal shelter where there happen to be a lot of pit bulls. I've learned a lot about the dogs and have become disturbed by the amount of misinformation that circulates about them. So I did some research and wrote a knol titled "The pitfalls of stereotyping pit bulls."

The hardest part was the research. But given that I do that every day for my job, it wasn't all that tough. I wrote the item in Microsoft Word and then cut and pasted it into the Knol page. It was easy to use the editing tools and add images. However, I think the page looks rather simple and dull. The system lacks the ability to add background colors and other stylistic flourishes that give blogs that individualistic panache.

Once I published the knol using the default "moderated collaboration mode," a colleague logged into his Google account and suggested an edit to my knol. I, in turn, rejected that edit (it's irrelevant that ex-Atlanta Falcons player Michael Vick, who I mention in the knol in reference to his dog fighting charges, wasn't that great of a quarterback). The system didn't notify my colleague that I snubbed his edit; he had to go to the page and keep checking the site for himself. It would be nice if the system were to notify people of the status of their suggested edits. Later, I found out that when an edit is accepted, the person who suggested it will be listed as a contributor in the contributor's list on the page.

My colleague, Tom Krazit, suggested an edit to my knol, which I subsequently rejected.

It also took a few hours for the system to index my knol so it could be searched via the main Knol page and even then, it only initially showed up when I searched by subject (pit bulls) but not by author name. By the next morning, I could search also by author name. The knol has yet to show up on the Google search page using both subject and author.

A Google spokeswoman said it takes time for the company to index new knols, but didn't say how long.

After some digging around I figured out how to add advertisements through Google's AdSense program, but I won't see any on the page for awhile (it can take up to two weeks, the system said).

Adding a New Yorker cartoon was simple. I was directed to the online New Yorker Store where I searched for cartoons dealing with pit bulls and found one. But when I added it into the blog it automatically inserted it at the top of the text and above the other image I had chosen. It didn't look right, so I removed it. If I had had the ability to determine where on the page the cartoon should go, I would have used it closer to the bottom of the page.

This New Yorker cartoon, while it was appropriate to the subject matter, was removed when I learned I couldn't control where it appeared on the page.

(Credit: The New Yorker)

I felt an odd sense of power, and responsibility, creating my knol. It gives me the ability to publish anything I want, without having to run it past an editor like I do at CNET News. And once it is published, it is a permanent record and has an air of legitimacy that editorializing and gossipy blogs don't have. It's a Google knol--"a unit of knowledge" as the Web site describes it, lending it at least the illusion of propriety.

But what if I wanted to write something inaccurate or defamatory? Already that question has been put to the test with a knol written by Rachel Marsden, the ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

Her knol is titled "Jimmy Wales (Jimbo Wales)" and the summary describes Wikipedia as an "online libel board," that "any loser can use to smear people who are more successful than them."

I asked the Google spokeswoman about this situation and her response was: "Knol will be subject to our general content policies and terms of service, and knol content will be treated under those policies like any other user-generated content for which we provide a distribution platform. In particular, we will provide community flagging tools and the usual legal notification processes, so that we can comply with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, because knols are attached to verified author names, we think that the structure of Knol will actually provide something of a disincentive to defamatory or other harmful content."

It will be interesting to see how the Marsden-Wales fracas plays out on Knol. Google's response didn't give me any confidence that the system won't be widely abused. And it's likely that people who disagree with my knol will create one of their own with contradictory conclusions.

In an interview on Wednesday, Knol Product Manager Cedric Dupont said Google won't be determining the legitimacy of knols or verifying the authority of their creators. "We are not editors in any way," he said.

"We think we make it very easy for the user to determine the trustworthiness of the content."

I've deemed myself an expert on pit bulls by writing the knol. We'll see if the reader reviews and ratings suggest otherwise.

Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 and previously covered search, online advertising, and portals. E-mail Elinor.
Recent posts from News - Digital Media
AOL to developers: Put passion over profit
Yahoo OneSearch 2.0 slowly spreads voice search
Wal-Mart reversal teaches us the masses have might
Wal-Mart reverses policy on DRM?
VCs throw cold water on portfolio companies
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 19 comments
by jamalystic July 25, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
Thanks for sharing this first-hand experience. It looks lovely though from what you've just written. I've particular interest on the advertisments aspects of knol and please update us when u are able to place an AD on your knol!! Is this: Googlepedia?(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=141423&F_src=flftwo)
Reply to this comment
by MadLyb July 25, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
Sounds to me like they didn't fix any of the Wikipedia problems with integrity, other than anonymity, and just added a revenue stream.

I would have hoped for more.
Reply to this comment View reply
by Pricey July 25, 2008 1:23 PM PDT
Sorry but...

Without going through all the hassle and wasting time stuck in knolhell I just want to say that the 1 person I ever knew that had a pitbull had major problems with it killing horses near his home...he got rid of it and who knows what it could have done to him had he kept the dog. I really hope these knols don't end up hurting good people looking for truly factual information.
Reply to this comment View reply
by The-Fennster July 25, 2008 1:32 PM PDT
Great Article!!! I linked to this article right away... Thanks for the walkthrough and great pitbull article too!!! http://www.fennster.com
Reply to this comment
by loudbang July 25, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
The inability of others to edit out the parenthetical about Michael Vick's quarterbacking, in an article about pitbulls, highlights big flaws with knol. Wikipedia moderation might be a tad towards oppressive, but it is effective in keeping the crap out of their articles. Knol's policies will bloom a million little emperors.
Reply to this comment View reply
by runswithscissorsXX July 25, 2008 6:19 PM PDT
after reading your knol, i'm left wondering how you can call yourself a journalist.

first : a single year since the dogs in the vick incident have been allowed to be re-introduced to society is no where near enough time to judge the situation. interview the owners of the pitbulls in five years.

second : the *only* statistic you offer is 1966-1975 attack rates? give me a break.

further : this statistic invalidates your entire article. the fci recognizes 251 dog breeds, 400 counting mixed-breeds. only two breeds, rottweilers and pitbulls, accounted for 2% of fatal dog attacks. some very simple mathematics shows that 2 breeds accounting for 2% of the attacks is *far out of proportion.* if there were 100 dog breeds, and rottweilers and pitbulls accounted for 2%, that would prove they are no more dangerous than anything else. since there are 2.5 - 4 times that amount of breeds, is shows that they are 2.5 - 4 times more likely to attack.

finally : there are 251 - 400 dog breeds. *buy a different breed.* they are *almost all as loving and affectionate as the nicest possible pitbull.* you do not *have* to own a pitbull, but doing so places the public at risk.

it is shoddy, shoddy journalism like this that's destroying this country.
Reply to this comment
by tikoro July 25, 2008 7:04 PM PDT
runswithscissorsXX:

Great...I'm going to make an educated guess that you don't actually have a job as a professional journalist considering your name contains the net infested XX in it. Yet you criticize someone else's. Then lay all the faults of our country at the feet of journalists? Yes, because nobody else is to blame...It's all a matter of the journalists. Those darn journalists that did or did not send military to Iraq, or to anywhere. Those darn journalists that decide our fiscal budget each year and when to raise or lower taxes, and what kind of healthcare reform we should consider and who should be the president, etc... Yeah..those journalists..they just have absolute power in this country...You sir/ma'am, are an idiot.

Your reply also points towards you being one of those people that bickers back and forth with others on wikipedia. Apparently since you are not able to start a flame war on the knol site, you do it here?

Owning a pit bull places the public at risk? Why? Pit bulls, along with any other domesticated breed of dog, or any other animal for that matter, rely on their treatment, training, and situation to react to life. Kind of like humans...you treat them right, they do good things. You abuse them, and you have opened up a world of options for them to become an abuser.
Reply to this comment
by runswithscissorsXX July 25, 2008 7:30 PM PDT
it was precisely shoddy journalism that allowed the idea of "WMDs exist in iraq" that began a great deal of the mess we're currently in. i certainly blame fox news for degenerating journalistic standards to the point the media has completely coddled this president every step of the way. and this article is prime fox news "material."

i have made no assumptions, whilst your reply is full of them. your post also doesn't attempt to refute my statements. it also has insults. you're also purposely twisting my words to suit your argument. i did not say "journalism like this is the only thing destroying this country." what you're doing is starting a flame war. what i did was point out tremendous flaws in her arguments.

(p.s. i abhor wikipedia. and the only reason i'm responding to this at all is because your bio shows you've made no other posts, so i will at this time make an assumption that you are elinor mills hiding behind a fake identity.)
Reply to this comment View reply
by SteveCarter! July 26, 2008 12:35 AM PDT
Hi Elinor - I thought you did a great job with the article. I think one of the benefits of something like knol is that it puts a face to the content as opposed to the anonymity of a person simply adding opinions [ a bit like this really]. At least people will get a chance to evaluate the writers credentials for the material and they can decide whether it is worth reading. Interesting bit about also about Rachel Marsden, the ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

Good Work!
Steve
http://www.bestdogtrainingtips.co.uk
Reply to this comment
by f0r0ne July 26, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
I don't see this thing going too far. Knol seems to miss the aspect that has made Wikipedia work, which is the endless fussing that eventually builds pretty credible articles by many informed reader/editors. Google has to structure it so it does not incur any potential copyright, libel or other liabilities, so it has to limit itself to being a conduit only (a la YouTube), so it will not review content. Corrections by anybody else are accepted or rejected in the writer's discretion. Certainly, Google is promoting / publicizing Knol with articles by some bona fide experts (assuming their bio blurbs are true), but for an example of the future of ad hoc contributors look at the "Buttermilk Pancakes" article Google itself is featuring: "I am not a professional chef. I have, however, made thousands of pancakes. I have three boys and Sunday morning is usually pancake morning. ..." This could be anybody's blog. The article isn't subject to the vetting in cooks.com, or to any reader comments or suggestions as in lots of other recipe sites. All you get is a aggregate star rating from people who might or might not have tested the recipe or have interesting things to say about it. Beyond pancakes, the medical expertise which is heavily promoted the Google front page looks like cut/paste info from web.md, nimh, etc. All this, and then try actually searching for a topic that isn't put in front of your nose - there is no coherent way to find out if anything is or isn't covered - not even a text search, but only a title search - how many times will a reasonable user waste time drawing a blank on Knol before going back to more dependable resources.
Reply to this comment
by GeoBear2 July 26, 2008 5:03 PM PDT
I think Knol is a fascinating experiment, and I predict it will be very successful. I don't know if it will topple Wikipedia, but I think it will at least become a powerful rival. Both have their pros and cons, and I think they will nicely complement each other.

I'm particularly vexed by Wikipedia's political content; it sucks, and anyone who tries to edit some of the more prominent articles quickly discovers that Wikipedia is ultimately policed by the same corporate powers that control the mainstream media. Knol offers a fresh new approach that might help renew the Internet as a mouthpiece for us little people.

There's no doubt in my mind that corporate interests will be keeping a close eye on Knol and actively striving to mold it to their interests. I just hope the general public takes enough interest to beat them on this battlefield.

David Blomstrom
Candidate for Public Office
Reply to this comment
by hotsexylegs9111!!! July 26, 2008 10:57 PM PDT
All hail the new mighty Knol, with a little knowledge and writer know how on a subject, that subject can be ?monetized with ads?. Were a bunch of egos huh? Or Google would like you to fulfill your ego of your great Knol with the prosperity of the ad. I am just waiting for the time where you go into a public place and you have to acknowledge their sponsors to talk to some one on a subject of interest(oh wait that is already reality), what?s the difference between that and a Knol. Let?s see I get on a train and say ?Sir if I acknowledge you sponsor can you give me some useful information on a subject that you feel you have researched?. The freedom of information act homepage should have google ads too. Google should make a place where you can blog, called Google Tools, where all of you can post and brag of your monetized ads?. Who decides who is the expert on a subject of a Knol? Are we supposed to accept the finality of the biggest monetized ad money maker as the final word? Can poor people make a Knol too, or is this just for people who can research?
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 27, 2008 1:52 AM PDT
For my needs(math, CS and engineering) Wikipedia is a very accurate resource to begin research.

What the world does not need is a poor imitation complete with ads. Another reason to ignore Google.
Reply to this comment
by RobertAPierce July 28, 2008 5:50 AM PDT
It seems to me that since the author can control edits, it's no different than a bunch of blogs put together in one place. Your article on pitbulls could be completely wrong, but since nobody can correct it, it would stay that way, and readers would be misled. (I'm not saying that's the case, your article seems fine). Someone else will then write their own knol that has different information, which again can only be edited by the author. So how's the reader supposed to know what's real and what's BS? They don't, so basically it's a bunch of blogs put together.
Reply to this comment
by sdgottlieb July 31, 2008 6:33 PM PDT
great article. thanks elinor!
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About News - Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News - Digital Media topics

Featured blogs

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right