Google Knol: Wikipedia Killer or Scholarly Research Assassin?

Google's knol project is inciting many to cry monopoly. Others are dramatically calling it the Wiki killer. According to the Google blog, Google is attempting to make information "easily accessible by selecting a group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling 'knol', which stands for a unit of knowledge." Google goes on to say that a knol is a web page, and anyone is free to write on any topic they wish, eventually, but right now a knol is open only to invited experts. "Google will not serve as an editor or bless any content." In other words, our freedom of speech is still intact. The main concern right now is monopolization and conflict of interest but, the integrity of scholarly research is also in question.

Knols will likely show up at the top of search results. A search engine (Google) will direct you to its own data (knol) - and that reeks of monopoly. One blog states: "Google's mysterious Page Rank system is what Internet Explorer was to Microsoft in the late 1990s: a way to control the destiny of others." People do not like to find their destiny under control. Enter FireFox, Safari, and good old Mac.

If the control of your destiny doesn't make you want to cry out, there are other issues which may cause you to utter an expletive. This is when the knol enters into Wikipedia territory. The author's will be paid and will not be anonymous contributors. The Google knol is directly entering into competition with Wikipedia and offering an alternative. This does not mean that Wiki will go under. According to Motley Fool, "Wikipedia has left a lot of money on the table by not monetizing its website beyond user contributors, but that has also given it an aura of integrity, even if visitors can never trust the actual content completely." Good to know, that Wikipedia has integrity and a niche of safety. However, one must remember that no one should ever completely trust any content. Even if a name is attached, or if the author receives compensation for their article. Assessing information is a vital skill called critical thinking. Skepticism is the way to properly assess information of any kind.

ANECDOTE

I was recently teaching a lesson on research to an English 101 Freshman Composition Class. I opened with the question "Where do you get your information?" "The Internet," the entire class sing-songed. "Where are on the Internet?" The chorus was interrupted. There were some murmurings of Wikipedia, others of Yahoo, and some indistinct mutterings. When left to their own devices they seemed to have agreed upon Google. We then discussed how to determine credible sources - are they trying to sell you something or are they trying to tell you something, or both? Are they anecdotal or empirical? Are they peer reviewed? Are the sources scholarly? After the students were that told Google is a way to start a search but not the way to end it, and that a student should never cite google.com and consider their research done, one student asked me about GoogleScholar. I then realized that these Freshmen had no idea of the resources available to them. Although they use the Internet all the time they sure don't know how to use it for research. They utilize the Internet for entertainment, information, socialization and a date with partners both real and imagined. A student can use the Internet to access scholarly knowledge but those who utilize the Internet for knowledge don't rely solely on commercial search engines. For instance, in the academic world there are many databases chock full of scholarly articles which were not written for profit (at least not directly). A university worth its metal buys access to such databases as JSTOR, ProjectMuse, and PsycINFO, these databases direct students and professors (scholars) to peer-reviewed research articles. I believe my students now know that they can use GoogleScholar to find articles but they should NEVER purchase articles through GoogleScholar because the library (the outdated place they seem to find useless their freshmen year) can get them anything they want for free. That, I told them, is what all your tuition is for, don't pay double. University library sites are always up and running and with your student ID number you can access the databases at 3:30 a.m. from Spring Break in Cancun if you want to.

One student, eyes wide with sudden epiphany, asked "What did everyone do before the Internet?" "We went to the library." I told her. Then I explained that it was the same process. Keywords helped you navigate the card catalogue. You searched through the stacks, but you always had a rough idea of what you were looking for and true research, whether online or hard-copy, always has to do with sifting through sources, many, many sources. You discern their quality, you cross-reference and find primary data. You disagree with something someone wrote and then find another author who not only agrees with you but is also smarter than you and can provide better points against the author with whom you disagree. Sometimes, you may even change your mind.

PEER REVIEWS AND KNOWLEDGE

Many of my colleagues dislike Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Yet, students often cite Wikipedia as a scholarly source. As a result, we spend much time in our classes explaining why Wiki is not a credible source. Anyone can write an article for Wikipedia but not everyone can write an article for The New England Journal of Medicine, we tell our students. A peer-reviewed process ensures that the information is accurate. Peer means someone equal to the author in knowledge and experience. Psychologists review the work of other psychologists. Peer-reviewing is anonymous, ensuring against political and personal rejections of important articles. At the end of the semester students understand the importance of peer reviewing, and hopefully carry that knowledge off to their other classes.

The danger of the Google Knol is that it appears to be peer-reviewed. At the top of the sample knol is a link for Peer Reviews, yet, Google states " Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it." This is not a peer review. I can foresee much confusion in the classroom next semester. If Google wants to make money, fine. Google is a business. But corrupting language and definitions is a different thing entirely. There is a generation of Internet users out there who have no desire to wander through library stacks. This too is fine, they have access to a great deal of information at their fingertips, both good and bad information. The Internet is not an evil place. I know very well that you can spend two hours wasting time with friends and reading irrelevant junk in a library too. For instance, I was once researching bloodletting and folk medicine only to stumble upon warfare and cannibalism . After reading graphic accounts from New Guinea, I changed my topic. I won't tell you too much about the time I found an old misshelved copy of Are You There God, It's Me Margaret? and ate up valuable research time while I stood in an aisle waxing nostalgic and acting out certain paragraphs with a friend of mine. But I do know, without a doubt, what makes good content for a scholarly paper. I fear that a generation of students will be led astray. The term "peer review" is being redefined and not for the better. Easy access to information is not creating a healthy skepticism nor does it foster critical thinking. I will tell my students that a knol is like Wikipedia - a good place to start in order to gain familiarity with a topic - but not a scholarly source. Much like Wikipedia, a knol offers citations at the bottom of page. Hard copy never dies. I will continue to direct my students to those sources.

"Competition of ideas is a good thing," states Google. Competition drives capitalism. The quest for truth drives knowledge. Google seems to be redefining knowledge. Phrases such as "knowledge management" are being tossed around. How sterile. Knowledge is thick, deep, heavy and mysterious. The beauty of knowledge lies in its complexity. Thetragedy of knowledge is in it's mismanagement.

The point of all this is simple. Research, whatever the medium, is a beautiful thing. Skepticism and critical thinking keeps knowledge from taking a tragic turn. Perhaps the days of wine and roses are over for brick and mortar academic libraries. Wikipedia may find competition growing steep, but even though change is frightening, change does not mean death.