dawblack posted on August 07, 2008 20:54
Knol, which is an abbreviation which stands for "unit of knowledge", isn't really a replacement for Wikipedia, in my judgment. It seems to be giving a voice to people on particular topics, but the quantity of the content is not going to come close to that of Wikipedia. As for the quality of the content, it is difficult to find information in the Help topics on Knol about what processes are set in place to ensure that this site shares authoritative information. Just because someone says they are a doctor and write a Knol on a medical topic, are we to assume that the biographical information is correct? Is this being checked and verified by someone? Should we rely on peer evaluations of content? What about the ratings system in place with Knol?
It seems to me that just because a service claims to be building something authoritative doesn't mean that it actually succeeds. One still needs to use the same techniques to question the accuracy and validity of information whether there is the claim that the information is more authoritative or not. Therefore, the analysis of Internet information doesn't change with the building of a new content creation model. We must think critically about ALL information we encounter, and teach our students to do the same.