http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-212067.html
Which makes some sense - a signed article by an expert in a field is a good source, and Knol is a handy place for it.
So, Knol ~= about.com.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-212067.html
Which makes some sense - a signed article by an expert in a field is a good source, and Knol is a handy place for it.
So, Knol ~= about.com.
"Knol is a hybrid of the individual, often opinionated entries found in blogs and the collective editing relied on by Wikipedia and other wiki sites."
A hybrid in which the wiki accounts for, oh, 0%. Isn't it the Encarta model where outsiders can suggest updates? Isn't it the old paper model where hypertext is reduced to the occasional (q.v.)?
I don't doubt people will look up medical info there. As long as it's updated.
Charles
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:47:48AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Which makes some sense - a signed article by an expert in a field is a good source, and Knol is a handy place for it.
We need to treat Knol the same as any other self-published, non-peer-reviewed source. The use of these sources has to be as minimal as possible, even if the sources are written by experts in the field. Some of the sources will be fine, but a significant number will be full of idiosyncratic opinions and interpretations that the experts would never be able to publish in a respectable journal. Any forum that lacks editorial review will attract a disproportionate number of fringe views.
I find I am spending more and more time lately explaining the idea of "due weight" for novel theories without broad support in the research community.
- Carl