Tag Archives: wikipedia

What price a byline? (Or: what’s wrong with Knol)

A reader criticised my frequent referencing of Wikipedia in my last post, on the basis that everyone knows what WP is and that indeed some of us have Firefox extensions[1] to make quickly consulting it easy. I admitted he had a point, prompting another reader to protest that it doesn’t matter where the links go to, as long as they’re informative and well-written. The degree to which they were both right was strikingly indicative of how far WP has come. Given that it’s so often the first search result on Google for a huge number of queries, making explicit links to it can seem like adding links to dictionary.com for longer semantemes[2]. And the reason I reference it so often is that its collective writing style and usual accuracy is ideal for a quick introduction to what may be unfamiliar ground.

But its status as the #1 go-to place for so many Google queries didn’t go unnoticed in Mountain View. Yesterday Google finally released their long-in-development About.com-mimic Knol. A “Knol” is an unnecessary neologism coined by Google to mean a “unit of knowledge”, but seems the basic idea is to compete with Wikipedia on the authoritative content front, by meeting one of the oft-heard (albeit not so much anymore, if only due to exhaustion) criticism of WP: that you can’t trust it because you don’t know who wrote it. Knol’s point of differences with WP are then as follows:

  • You can have more than article on a topic.
  • Articles are signed by their authors
  • Advertising will be displayed, and it will be split with authors.
  • The level of collaborative editing allowed on each article is controlled by the author, as is the licensing.

I’ve been reading through a few of its articles, and what’s striking me is what they’ve lost by not having universal editing. So often WP was compared to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Knol tries to compromise between the two, but in doing so completely erodes the role of the editor. The person who doesn’t actually write the content, but polishes it to a publishable standard, and makes it consistent with the rest of the corpus of work. Today’s featured Knol is on Migraines and Migraine Management. It’s written by a neurologist, so you know it’s authoritative, and it doesn’t allow public editing, so you know it hasn’t been tampered with.

But compare it with WP’s article on Migraines, and you’ll see just how needing of an editor it is. It’s written as if it’s intended for paper, with non-hyperlinked cross references “Migraine is defined as a headache that [TABLE 2]:”. “[TABLE 2]”, is a JPEG image at reduced size. There’s no reason for that and not an actual HTML table. (Additionally Google, there’s no reason for the images to be inline with the content like that. Consider a Tufte-like layout, where the tables and references and footnotes can go out to the side).

Throughout Knol you’ll find all sort of bad design practice. I swear I saw image hotlinking in one article before. But in particular, a lot the seed articles seem to be HTML dumps of articles already written by medical professionals, like this one. It’s closed collaboration, so unlike WP, you can’t just drop in and quickly format that into something presentable (at present there’s no change in style, the intra-page headings are just capitalised, there’s an odd amount of whitespace, and the page title itself isn’t capitalised).

There’s two big surprises here, given that this is a Google project, and how long it’s been in development there. And if they don’t fix this, I fear an epic failure.

The first is that they’ve provided such an unstructured writing environment. If you’re trying to create a body of high quality written material, there are ways you can structure your editing environment so that content conforms to certain styles and expectations. It’s particularly in Google’s interest to do so, since as they keep telling the SEO world, well-structured HTML and documents are easier for them to index and search. And yet Knol’s featured Migraines article has swathes of tabular content in the un-indexable, un-accessible JPEG format.

The second is much more subtle and can’t be fixed with as much of a technology patch as the first can. Google have failed to realise that often the most expert authors are going to be simultaneously the least equipped to properly format and polish their own documents (whether it be  due to lack of technical skills, or time), and also the least willing to submit their work to editorial changes from the unwashed anonymous masses. The fix for this I think will involve a recognition and separation of the two types of editing that happen on Wikipedia: authoring or fixing of content; and editing for quality control (fixing grammar, spelling, style, adding useful metadata to a document). Then build a system to acknowledge the good editors, not just the good authors. Then encourage authors to allow editorial changes from recognised quality editors. In fact, drop the “closed collaboration” option altogether.

This is even harder than getting good quality content in the first place. Writing is glamorous. Editing isn’t, but it’s so very important. Knol’s only got half the problem solved.

[1] Certainly one of my favourite extensions is the perenially useful Googlepedia, which remixes your Google search results to embed the first returned WP article on the right (It’s particularly nice on widescreen monitors).

[2] So it’s not a directly applicable synonym of ‘word’, but it was the best the thesaurus could give me

Advertisements

WikiStat, a Greasemonkey extension for viewing Wikipedia edit distributions

In my previous post I wanted to make a pie graph quickly, and so for the first time used Google’s relatively new charting API. It’s a pretty neat little concept, taking in all the data and parameters for the chart in a single URL and then giving you the resulting image. I thought there had to be a better use for that than a static joke pie chart. Then in a meeting of my quiet interest in information visualization and some previous experience at writing a Greasemonkey script (if you know Javascript but haven’t tried GM, do so. It’s actually quite fun and easy), I decided to have a stab at using the API in a slightly more dynamic and useful way.

It’s called WikiStat and shows the time distribution of up to 250 of the most recent edits on an article, giving you a quick insight on how recently and intensively edited a page has been edited.

WikiStat screenshot

You’ll need Firefox and Greasemonkey to use it.  If you’ve got those, then click here to install it.

I haven’t tested it with anything other than GM 0.7 and FF3b3. I do recall that Opera can do user scripts these days, so it might be able to do it too. No promises though.

I’m most interested in suggestions for improvements.

Update:

WikiStat pie chart screenshot

Added a pie chart to show approximately how many of the edits were reversions. Makes for somewhat depressing viewing when you then consider there’s an invisible but equally large and ultimately non-productive segment of the pie.