19 Comments

Comment by Stacy Esch on December 17, 2007 at 7:07pm

Will google knol have the advantage in google searches? Will it always be the first item in the list?

Comment by Arthur Griffith on December 17, 2007 at 7:21pm

I wouldn't think a knol entry would have any special rankings in a Google search. I don't think they would be foolish enough to mess with their search engine success. It seems to me that the enormous value of knol will be in the knowlege of the authorship of a piece of information. I've always assumed anonymous information to be largely rumor. Having the ability to authenticate the source is a tremendous step forward.

Comment by Louis Li on December 18, 2007 at 12:53pm

I love Google, and i believe that Google will help me in future!

Comment by Slim Shady on December 20, 2007 at 10:05am

Will this evolution in information sharing and search cause us to think about the objectivity of information and truth even more? Will this just blur the lines even further on what is provable information and conjecture? What is truth?

Comment by Andy Lew on December 21, 2007 at 12:18am

I love the google knol's concept for competing the ideas for the very best article. Look forward to seeing the evolution of knowledge world's contribution!

Comment by Leon on December 21, 2007 at 6:55am

Knowledge is king and lives in a kingdom with one room.
Room for improvement. Expand your thoughts try the right hemisphere
Rose-ology by Leon

Comment by Stacy Esch on December 21, 2007 at 8:16am

"Will this evolution in information sharing and search cause us to think about the objectivity of information and truth even more? Will this just blur the lines even further on what is provable information and conjecture? What is truth?"

I have to admit, Slim Shady, that I enjoy questions like this one.

No amount of available information has the power to improve thinking unless the thinker is able to see that information through a critical lens. Information is never, or rarely ever, purely objective, or objectively pure, but some information is purer and more objective than its neighbor. Unless you agree with the validity of Plato's Ideal Forms, then its hard to defend the notion of absolute truth, or absolute beauty, or absolute anything. That is far from saying that information can't be reliable, credible, and "to the best of our knowledge"; making that distinction is what separates a critical thinker who can make rational decisions and the person who makes emotional decisions that can't be rationally supported. We have all of these wonderful new and improved information gathering tools that provide us with endless streams of raw material, but the mind that has to sift it and sort it by critical judgment isn't really new or improved much at all. It's the same old process of questioning, analyzing, synthesizing, critiquing, and judging that takes time and effort.

At the upper echelons people are as critical and rational as ever (it seems to me), but what about the average person walking around? How prepared or encouraged are average people to think critically when searching for information on the Internet? Is knol going to solve this person's problems by doing the critical thinking for them? I doubt it.

Comment by Arthur Griffith on December 21, 2007 at 4:42pm

Stacy, you've heard the expression, "food for thought." That's all information is, or can be. The source of the information is a part of that information. In your mind, you must color the information with the bias and credibility of its source. The final coloring of all information is in the mind of the receiver. Some receivers color information so drastically that it is unrecognizable to the original source. However, the individual at the source of the information can't be blamed for it becoming skewed later.

But I'm wandering off course. My point is that the quality of information is greatly enhanced by it being presented in such a way that its source can be identified. Unless the receiver of the information can somehow qualify the veracity of the information, it falls into the category of hearsay or myth. Of course, there is nothing wrong with hearsay and myth, as long as you realize that's all you have.

The average person walking around is as qualified as anyone else to deal with information. It is a matter of context. Everybody has a discriminating filter for incoming data, and only what is important to that person gets through. If you look up and notice a brick has been hurled at your head, you don't immediately think of parabolic trajectories--you think of mass, speed, and "duck!" Then you look for the source to determine whether another missile might be coming in. Identification of the source is paramount. Always.

Comment by Stacy Esch on December 21, 2007 at 8:30pm

Arthur, I agree with you completely.

Comment by David Shank on December 24, 2007 at 2:27am

This hardly qualifies as a "black swan" - Google's attempt to coopt the wikipedia phenomenon is blantantly derivative at best. The irony here is that Nassim Taleb's "favorite" saying is ""My major hobby is teasing people who take themselves and the quality of their knowledge too seriously ....." Seems to me all the "excitement" around knol is the very same thing.

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2