|
|
Or so, at least, Google would like you to conclude. Significant differences include single-author control (but the freedom for other authors to set up competing pages as well), bylines for page authors, reader ranking, and - oh yes - Google ads (authors interested in allowing ad placements would get a "substantial" share of the resulting revenues).
|
|
The less rigid approach adopted by Google for the project is what I find to be most intriguing. In effect, the knol platform strikes me as being a bit like Sourceforge, since the tools provided will allow different, variously open cultures to evolve under specific topics, with some authors insisting on maintaining total control of their topic, and others acting as project managers, guiding the process in a manner more like an open source project. Here's how freedom is described:
Knols will include strong community tools. People will be able to submit comments, questions, edits, additional content, and so on. Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it. Knols will also include references and links to additional information. At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads.
Not only different models of collaboration would be possible, but different types of presentations, and areas of focus, would also be possible, potentially making the Knol a less uniform, but more interesting browse, at least in its pioneer phase, before a more uniform approach would be likely to organically evolve. Or, who knows, perhaps not. Perhaps the Knoll would become more like a library than an encyclopedia, which could be very exciting indeed.Full Story |
