What is this abomination called knol?

I'd never heard of knol before, but apparently it was Google's attempt at creating a competitor to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its flaws, but wow, it was revealing to see the alternative: knol is awful.

It was brought to my attention because it is infested with woo. To see how bad it is, compare the answers to this question:

Does god exist? (wiki)

Does god exist? (knol)

The Wikipedia query returns a fairly objective article that lists various arguments that different faiths and philosophies have made. The knol query returns a
ghastly article by a creationist that actually uses the argument that if you shake the pieces of a broken watch, they'll never spontaneously reassemble into a working watch. This isn't a useful starting point for asking the question; it's a pile of nonsense that misleads. Other articles returned are, for instance, sectarian testimonials by various churches.

Well, the story is that knol is young, it hasn't developed a full knowledge base yet, but its supposed to be good for scientific and medical topics. So I gave it a shot, and searched for a familiar term of art, cell signaling, on both.

Cell signaling (wiki)
Cell signaling (knol)

Wikipedia returns a respectable summary article that gives a general overview, brings up some of the key terms, and gives examples. It would be a fine starting point for starting to look into the subject.

The knol search returns a hodge-podge of articles; the top link is to a grad student's scan of part of a poster on signaling. It's not at all useful. Otherwise, it's a mix of fragments, mixed up with a few bits on how mobile phones work. It's useless.

I tried to help the knol search a bit by adding a few other terms, but discovered that most of them just confused it worse; don't ever try to include the word "protein", for example, unless you're really looking for fad diets.

Here's the real test: I asked Wikipedia about knol, and knol about Wikipedia.

Knol (wiki)
Wikipedia (knol)

The Wikipedia article presents just the facts; knol returns yet another mess,
some of them OK, others are
incoherent tirades against Wikipedia.

This thing was announced in 2007, and it supposedly has been building up content for a few years. A link to it was sent to me because it really has become the domain of kooks and crazies and fringe ideas, I think with the idea that making it more widely known would help it acquire more credible contributors.

I don't know. After looking it over, I think the best answer is…let it die. If google won't do it the kindness of putting it out of its misery, just let it drown in its own toxic effluent.

Tags

More like this

I have a hodge-podge of old National Lampoons stored away in the basement. Periodically, I scan a few selected items (articles by P.J. O'Rourke and Chris Miller, various cartoons) for digital posterity. All are highly irreverent and culturally insensitive, and yes, I hoot raucously at them. Among…
Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I assure you, it gets worse. Google may be taking a shot at Wikipedia (and similar projects) with its newly unveiled Knol project. Knol was announced many moons ago but has been under cover and password protected with only a few special people allowed in to see…
A few weeks ago I was pointed to Scitable, part of the Nature media empire. Here's how it's introduced: A free science library and personal learning tool brought to you by Nature Publishing Group, the world's leading publisher of science. Scitable currently concentrates on genetics, the study of…
Google is building its own version of communally-constructed online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which consistently ranks among the most visited websites in the world. The Internet search powerhouse is inviting chosen people to test a free service dubbed "knol," to indicate a unit of knowledge, vice…