[313] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Google's Knol vs. Wikipedia: Authors in the Sunlight
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Sun Dec 16 13:31:02 2007
Message-Id: <200712161741.lBGHfQWY018353@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:41:26 -0800
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[ The issues of attribution vs. non-attribution seem to fall
squarely into the privacy realm. In this case, I would argue
that the "privacy" provided by the generally non-attributed
status of Wikipedia items tends to limit their ability to
be viewed as authoritative, and that Google's new knol project,
by creating attributed foundational articles for topics, represents
to me a potentially much more attractive model for an authoritative
online encyclopedia. -- Lauren ]
Google's Knol vs. Wikipedia: Authors in the Sunlight
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000343.html
Greetings. A number of folks have been sending me copies of
Google's blogged preliminary announcement regarding the early
testing of their "knol" project, perhaps accurate to describe as
something like an attributed online encyclopedia with broad user
comment and contribution capabilities ( http://tinyurl.com/226zd4 ).
The key word here is *attributed*. While community submitted
questions, comments, additional material, and the like would
presumably not be subject to rigorous authorship identifications,
the foundational article on each topic will reportedly be fully
attributed to specific identified authors.
This may be something of a "hallelujah" moment, for knowledge of who
wrote an entry presented as authoritative can be paramount to the
reader's ability to judge the veracity and value of the text. I've
long felt that any author who wants to be taken seriously should
*strongly desire* to be attributed in all but a very narrow set
of circumstances (e.g. anonymity can be important in
"whistle-blower" situations and the like).
The knol announcement is being widely characterized as a direct
attack on Wikipedia (even I framed it in "vs." terms in the title of
this piece), but I'm unconvinced this is a completely accurate
characterization.
While I certainly use Wikipedia in some situations -- for quick
technical information lookups or movie synopsis details it's very
handy -- I have long been concerned about the easy mutability of its
articles combined typically with a lack of authorship information
(for example "Wikipedia and Responsibility"
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000257.html ),
and "Wikipedia Risks" [CACM]
( http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks05.html#186).
Since knol is not yet open to the public, I have yet to see it in
actual operation, and many important details are currently unknown
(to me, anyway). But based on the information available so far, it
appears to avoid the aspects of Wikipedia that I consider to be so
problematic and undermining.
Wikipedia will still no doubt have its place. But if Google is able
to grow knol successfully, I agree that it is likely to become a
primary Internet resource for authoritative information of all kinds.
As with so much else on the Net, time will tell.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
