Knol - could this be the start of something?

Google's announcement that they are setting up an online encylopedia to rival Wikipedia could be good news for writers (or at least for some writers who are prepared to compromise a bit). No doubt the word 'knol' (meaning a unit of knowledge) will find it's way into the OED very soon.  Unlike Wikipedia, Knol will have a single author for each entry - so won't be a wiki. And that author will be identified and allowed to earn income from the entry via advertising (they can 'montetize' it in the ugly jargon). This is essentially a way of facilitating self-publishing by authors. Authors will also retain copyright. If there is sufficient income stream from advertising (which there could be from very popular entries) Knol could be a way forward for those authors who don't mind earning from this source. It's not clear, however, what control the authors of the articles will have over the kinds of advertising that appear on their pages. But at least someone is thinking that content providers should be recompensed. Could this be the start of something? If I were a conventional publisher I'd be worried by this development.

If I've understood it correctly, it may be a bit like a massively expanded version of the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy in structure, with the addition of a possible income stream from advertising. What will be interesting is to see how Google treats entries by different authors on the same and related topics. Presumably there will have to be a ranking system that recognises the authority of different contributors in some way.

As well as the worry about lack of control about products writers' words are used to advertise, some people are already getting worried that Google will unfairly privilege Knol entries over other Web content when people are doing a Google search (see this article in The Guardian).

Comments

[Bob Churchill]

It seems like the only "compromise" you refer to is this lack of control over who might advertise on the site, yes? and thus who money is earned from? (Is this concern over receiving adverts from potentially objectionable sources the reason why Virtual Philosopher only "monetizes" via Amazon links?)

Anyway, I'm not sure that accepting money from ads served on pages we write is really such a "compromise". Knol authors, like most people who "own" a website, are accepting ads in a stream which is controlled by someone like Google Ads. The revenue the author accrues is coming from the ad provider, not direct from the company paying for the adverts. Google Ads is literally, in the philosophical sense, an advertising agency: they are the moral agent.

This is not to say that a website owner or knol writer shouldn't exercise some degree of caution over who is paying for the adverts on their pages, and the authors have every right and perhaps a resonsibility to complain or withdraw their content if the provider serves objectionable adverts to their page.

But the immediate ethical imperative to advertise responsibly and appropriately lies with the advertising intermediary; they are the third party and their policy over who they accept as advertisers is their responsibility. (And arguably Google "Don't Be Evil" Inc are a relatively trustworthy ad agency.)

By the way, there is indeed a ranking system. The Official Google Blog says "Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it." So presumably you will be able to search the knol base and sort the hits by (perceived) quality.