Preprints

From OpenAccess

Pre-Print. CC BY-NO-NO. Goes into Embargo on October 1.

The New Encyclopedia Brigade

Can Knowledge Creation Co-Exist?

By Robin Peek

When the web first came out it became clear that lurking deep inside many people was a graphic designer wanting to get out. Not always a good graphic designer but self-expression through HTML was a chance at 15-minutes of fame. That became passé and the memories of horrible color palettes, animated gifs, music that began when a web page opened, began to fade away. Next came the author phase of the web, as in “you’re-an-author? hey me too!” The logical extension after authorship is becoming an editor.

The editorial option is a little more complicated because you have to have something to edit or the least collaborate with. And then along came Wikipedia and being an editor became almost a new life form. Although a bit intimidating though because at the bemouth Wikipedia a new contributor is encouraged not to disclose their real identity on the off chance he or she might become stalked or harassed. Yes my friends, the knowledge game has apparently turned into a potentially dangerous business. If you want to create knowledge, do so at your own risk.

But whether you love it or hate it, the success of Wikipedia would mean that new encyclopedias would come along to challenge, or at least co-exist, with Wikipedia. I am going to highlight two of them, on different ends of the spectrum.

A Knol by Any Other Name

Let’s start with Knol with Google launched on July 23rd in beta (no surprise here, Google=beta, hey its Googlebeta!). At first glance, this is a new strategic path for Googlebeta because it puts it in the content creation business instead of putting up other people content for free but Googlebeta disavoes any responsibility for the content. According to the Knol web site, “the Knol project is a site that hosts many knols — units of knowledge — written about various subjects.” (Although the first time I typed knol into the Google search engine the results came back with a Dutch company (knol.com) that builds vacuum cleaners-hmmm, interesting symbolism.)

Knol has, since its immediately publicity, put great stock in the ability to verify the identity of the authors of its knolls, which puts it in stark contrast to Wikipedia. Verification in this sense requires the Knol author be confirmed by a telephone number or credit card of the same name. Admittedly this is not a bullet-proof system as one is only a telephone directory away from having lots of identities.

There are other differences. Knol allows for orginial narrative, which Wikipedia askews. By allowing this, however, Knol is beginning to take on the appearance of Helium “Where Knowledge Rules” which itself began with lofty aspirations but became a citizen journalism site. This could be a disappointing trend if it continues because Knol could merely become a Helium clone. Of course the really goofy smiley face (a Knol, I suppose) associated with Knol Help does detract from serious intentions.

Knol also allows the Knol author (a Knolthor?) to select from various levels of collaboration from Open (all signed in users) to Moderated (author approval needed) and Closed (only owners and authors may edit). And a Knolthor can select from three different licenses-Creative Commons (CC) Attribution 3.0, CC Attribution-Noncommerical 3.0, and plain old All Rights Reserved. While I am certain that this choice has been the first encounter many a Knolthor has had a with a CC license, I am thrilled to see two CC choices. Finally Google allows the owner of the Knol the option of having AdSense ads on the Knol and possibly generate revenue.

Citizendium

This wiki encyclopedia launched last December but its offerings were sparse and it was difficult to evaluate how it might grow and evolve. The name Citizendium is short for Citizen’s Compendium. The Citizendium (CZ)is a project of the Tides Center, but is operationally independent and the project anticipates becoming fully independent this year. Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder, is the Editor-in-Chief of CZ.

CZ is governed differently than Wikipedia. Contibuters are required to use their real names to apply and there is an application process where a human being looks at the application. The actual works themselves, however, are unsigned collaborative pieces that have been approved by experts (also know as editors). In order to qualify as an expert (or editor) the application process includes attaching (or linking) a CV or resume, as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. (In the spirit of full disclosure since I very much liked what I saw on this visit I did apply and was accepted as an editor.)

Being an editor at CZ is not like a traditional editorship as work is not assigned. Sanger describes the “role is one of gentle oversight--village elders wandering the bazaar.” Unlike Wikipedia, articles stay in a development area until they are considered complete enough to be approved as a live article, which is a welcome relief from the incomplete works that seem populate Wikipedia ad nasuem.

Another difference is that CZ is organized under a “genuine republic of letters governed by rule of law.” The model will use of a “regularly changing group of people tasked to make a public trust in conformity with a relatively stable code of rules.” This work is carried out by another group of people, who like Wikipedia, are called constables who are charged with ensuring the contributors follow the rules. The constables have to be over 25 and hold a baccalaureate degree.

I am pleased to see these and other new entries into the creation-of-knowledge arena. And I think such endeavors need to strike their own flavor and strive to co-exist. When it comes to narrative or opinion, one flavor cannot and should serve all. If you hate Wikipedia, I am sorry, but it is not going away anytime soon. And if you love it, well, you must have known that competitors would beat a path to its door. But if there were to become just one omnibus source of knowledge, some communal-mob-bliss of truth, I would not just be frightened, I would be really afraid.

Robin Peek is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Simmons College. For over a decade she has written the “Focus on Publishing” column for Information Today.