Google developing a Wikipedia rival?

Google is developing an online publishing platform where people can write entries on subjects they know, an idea that's close to Wikipedia's user-contributed encyclopedia but with key differences.

This is interesting, since our appearance an operation mimics that of Wikipedia, but without the technical complexity that has developed as its code has grown, and its use of an SQL database.

http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG.....r=rssnyt&emc=rss

One of the key differences seems to be that of anonymity. Like Wikipedia, our content is largely anonymous, which is generally appropriate for the much of the content, as this Forum provides the medium for discussing or reviewing subjects, and the consensus is generally what gets published on the main site. We differ from Wikipedia in that we recognise that personal memories and recollections may apply to some of the items we can cover, so have the addition of a Footnotes section, which appears at the end of an article, and includes personalised information. Personalised is still a bit of a misnomer though, as most contributions are received under web IDs, so we generally replace these with terms like local resident or similar, since the IDs mean little to the reader.

The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said. Google wants the knols to develop into a deep repository of knowledge, covering topics such as geography, history and entertainment. Anonymous users constantly update Wikipedia entries in an ever-growing online encyclopedia that's edited by a network of vetted editors. But Google asserts that the Web's development so far has neglected the importance of the bylined author.

"We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content," wrote Udi Manber, vice president of engineering, on the official Google blog. Google said anyone can write about any topic, and repetition of entries on the same subjects is beneficial. Entries can't be edited or revised by other people, in contrast to Wikipedia. However, other readers will be able to rank and review others' entries, which will then be interpreted by Google's search engine when displaying results.

I can see part of the logic behind this, but wonder how it will work in reality, since there is no opportunity for edit or revision by others. One of the strength's of Wikipedia is that the community acts to vet and eliminate spurious content and hijacking of subjects by those with an 'Agenda', or those wishing to promote our old friend, The Conspiracy Theory. With no edit or review, it would seem that anyone can publish anything, and it will be left in place, limited only by receiving low reader ranking.

As an example, our page on the Rudolf Hess flight to Scotland is indeed locked, and written more as an article on its own, than a SeSco page, however, it's been locked to prevent certain groups using it, and been written using only accepted info regarding the event, while still referring to the other interpretations, without actively promoting or ignoring them. The same is true of the Machrihanish ("Scotland's Area 51") page, only it has been left open, being unlikely to attract any politically motivated attacks.

If anyone has any thoughts on the concept, and anonymous versus bylined contribution, I'd be interested to hear them, BUT please don't launch into any anything based merely on Google-hate, which will just be deleted, and concentrate on discussion of the concept.

As I understand it, Wiki is an acronym for "What i Know Is".  The biggest downfall of Wikipedia is their insistance that it is not for " original research".  This seems to ignore the inescapable truth that every item on Wilipedia was, at some point in time, somebody's original research.

Some time ago I came across what appeared to me to be a very good extension to the page stub on Fairlie covering it's history a lot of which drew upon the writer's life experience in the village.  It was soon deleted and the information lost.  I also came across a page on Great Harbour in Greenock  which soon suffered a similar fate.

Conversely a sub page hidden under a link on Larkfield contained what could only be described as slanderous comments on a local shop keeper but this page seemed to survive for a few weeks.  I imagine that this was due to the size of Wikipedia and the complexities of keeping the whole thing under moderation by what must be a large group of moderators.

Wikipedia is clearly not perfect and rejects a lot of good information because conformation is not readily available so I can see why Google would want to come up with a better model but I am not convinced that, based on Apollo's message, they have come up with one.  Someone somewhere is going to have to control the content particularly where contributors come up with conflicting information.  At present I cannot see how this scheme is going to work but I stand ready to be convinced.

Dear oh dear (as some like to say) what a lot of misconceptions...

First, wiki is not, and never was, an acronym!

The Main site has an introduction to wikis: http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/PmWiki/WikiWikiWeb

WikiWikiWeb is an "open-editing" system where the emphasis is on the authoring and collaboration of documents rather than the simple browsing or viewing of them. The name "wiki" is based on the Hawaiian term "wiki wiki", meaning "quick" or "super-fast". The basic concept of a WikiWikiWeb (or "wiki") is that (almost) anyone can edit any page. While at first this sounds like a recipe for complete anarchy, the truth is that sites using this system have developed surprisingly complex and rich communities for online collaboration and communication. Yes, it's possible for someone to go and destroy everything on a page, but it doesn't seem to happen often. And, many systems (including this one) have built-in mechanisms to restore content that has been defaced or destroyed.

There are more detailed explanatory notes and links to wiki lore and culture on the page.

Encyclopaedias are NOT places for research, and Wikipedia merely maintains this principle. New research and the like are of no use to people looking for information on a subject, hence the rule (and also why SeSco has gone to some lengths to provide mechanisms for content to be included which is "New to the market" and up for debate in the Forum.

You have also been misled if you have been told that the deleted information has been lost. All the past info contributed to, for example, the Fairlie page in Wikipedia, can be seen by looking at the page history (same as SeSco). I had a quick look, and there is bad information that has been ditched. For example, one writer added info about the net/boom defence, but neglected to provide any evidence to back it up, however the bigger sin was to write the addition so badly that it could be inferred that the defence was installed as part of a NATO scheme, and not the World War II defence we have discussed.

This is patent rubbish that needs to be culled from public view - picture the case in a year or so when some well-meaning individual finds SeSco, remembers they read a 'secret' in Wikipedia, and generously adds that  'fact' to the SeSco content, with no source or proof. That's why even SeSco will ditch hairy stories, or those that can;t be found in at least three different sources, AND why Wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedias for that matter) is not an acceptable source. I think there's only one or two exceptions, for technical items, such as GPS.

Wikipedia, forums, blogs etc are always prey to the mindless attention of yobs, and the mods aren't psychic. They can't guess entries are libellous (that's in print, slander is in speech) and all depend on having such input reported for action - only a handful of people will know the truth, and it's unlikely that an admin or mod will be one of them (especially if they're in America, and the problem arises around someone in Greenock). The legal alternative is to do nothing about any content - if all content is unmoderated, then there is no recourse, other than to find the yob concerned.

Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is not true in any way to say they reject good information - they reject information added which is in contravention of the rules of encyclopaedias, and which no-one would blink an eye at of the product was in print. A few years ago, before Wikipedia cracked down on copyright theft and new information, every Tom, private and Harry was stealing photographs and uploading them there, and every crackpot, researcher, or author that couldn't get published or earn pear review of their research was shovelling into Wikipeda as a free source of publicity for their work, which was usually drivel, or Ye Olde Conspiracy Theory stuff.

Google has signalled that they want to give this stuff a stage, so we can only see how well it runs in the coming years, and if it becomes a repository for "I Think", while Wikipedia hold the fort for "We Know".

It will also be interesting to see how Google deals with libellous entries, as they say the content is not subject to review and edit. Wikipedia acts on such content (if anyone bothers to tell them it's there of course). With Google, will the libelled shopkeeper in Larkfield be able to do anything?

By the way, what a "sub page hidden under a link on Larkfield"?

I've never come across a 'sub page' - Wikipeda either provides links to other Wikipedia pages, or to external sites. Clearly, they'd be responsible for dealing with content on another linked page, but not for content on an externally linked site, although the link would be subject to their rules.

Phew, I didn't think the Google addition was so interesting, and nearly didn't bother, but I'm glad I did now.

Woah, who is getting hot under the collar now?

Regarding the Boom defence issue.  The Clyde Boom Defence depot used to be beside Princes Pier, Greenock when it was run by the RN..  In the 60s it was moved to Fairlie Pier and became a NATO Boom Defence Depot.  The move became possible when the railway and steamers ceased using the pier.  So there wasn't all that much wrong with the statment on the page. Can I prove my assertion?  No. It stems from having a Father in the Admiralty.  Original research??

Re the Larkfield Page it comes up under a link on the Greenock page but does not have the look of a fully fledged wikipedia page.  Where did it come from?  I have no idea, I just bang a few keys and see what comes up on the screen!

Sorry, it was meant to be informative. I know more about wiki, their history, and what the various sites that use mean to achieve, and how their background philosophies work than most folk, so it irritates me when I see false, incorrect, or misguided information being repeated.

Hopefully SeSco provides a more relaxed, but still factually rigorous environment for information to be shared, less formally upright than a site like Wikipedia is now forced to be thanks to the threat of various legislations.

I didn't mean for the Fairlie Boom to be taken too literally - sloppy intent on my part, which I apologise for (I had World War II as a 'current subject' rolling around my mind at the time). The generalisation I was really trying to convey was just the 'Fact vs Knowledge' quandary that can arise. Wikipedia can't cater for this, but I hope that SeSco can, as it actively invites 'Things Known' or 'Things Remembered', and caters for these by imposing a writing style that makes it clear that the tale is indeed a tale (which does not be it is not based on fact), and may not be found in in conventional records, if at all.

Maybe we need that Fairlie Boom page started (think)  

We have a lot to learn in developing this style - it's far from perfect, but we can only grow it as we pick up suitable content and have to deal with it appropriately.

Maybe we're (going to be) closer to Google's idea than Wikipedia's, or some sort of halfway-house hybrid.