online discussions of Dr. Talinn Phillips' ENG 308J course at Ohio University
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Writing for Google and Wikipedia
Tell us about your experiences writing for Google or Wikipedia. What did you find to be the primary differences between the two sites? Which one are you more likely to use now and why?
The experiences I gained from writing for Google Knol were actually rewarding. I used to always wonder how it would feel to publish or do a blog on a website that thousands of internet users look at and read each day. When we were in class doing the search for topics on Wikipedia and Google, I noticed a significant difference of how each website it set up and the information that is offered between the two. I saw that Wikipedia was a lot more in depth with their information and had a lot statistical and numerical information that is beneficial to the person researching a topic. Google Knol was a bit vague in regards to the topics that we were researched. From what I found on Google was a lack of in depth information. Google Knol just gave a broad scope of what the publisher said. After looking at both of these, most people would think and say, "Yea, I am going to do Wikipedia." I on the other hand thought that if I did Google Knol and presented the topic very well and described into detail what it was, I would feel pretty good about myself. Since I did a topic about Greek strolling and stepping, and the gap between the two, I presented the topic very well and broke it down to what strolling is and the origins of where it came from. By doing so I thought a lot of users on Google Knol would read my publishing and comment on it and give me positive feedback. Eventually I would like to do Wikipedia when I become a more proficient writer, and continue to improve on the mistakes that I make when writing for my classes and major papers. Wikipedia has always been the reliable site for research when we were all in middle school, but now that were college students we know the difference between Google and Wikipedia, and how the publishing's are actually done.
I chose to write for the Google Knol site because of it user friendly style where you could post an article that is composed of purely the authors ideas without fear of it being removed and/or edited by Google Knol itself or by another author. This difference is the primary difference between the two sites. When you post something on Google Knol its purely the authors word. However when you post something on Wikipedia it is the combined knowledge of those that use the internet. This constant editing and fact checking of all the posted articles on Wikipedia makes for a much for truthful site which on turn makes it much more useful to the average person searching for information about a topic that they do not already have the extensive knowledge needed to see through the authors word and be able to trust the information that is being presented to them. Even though I posted to Google Knol I would not use this site for any kind of resource. This is because I prefer to have the information as accurate as possible in order to find the information that I need and be able to believe it much more easily than having to search many posts and figure out the truthful information. To me Google Knol is more of a formalized blog site where people can post anything that they want to and have it stand on its own without fear of it being changed by others.
From the moment that we began this assignment I told myself that I was going to cater my assignment to Wikipedia. This was mostly for the fact that I have always wanted to write a Wikipedia article (I've been known to spend hours meandering throughout Wikipedia), and in all honesty I knew nothing about Google Knol until this class. Interestingly, though, prior to this assignment I had no idea exactly how difficult it can be to have an article accepted on Wikipedia. I began this assignment with a great debate on what article would actually be accepted on Wikipedia. Out of a variety of subjects which I can possibly be an expert on, only two seemed to not be present on Wikipedia; my student organization here at OU, and a night-club in Cleveland which I greatly enjoy attending when I am home. Ultimately, I chose my student organization. To my great disappointment, Wikipedia did not accept my article...my sources were things like newspaper articles and directories, and Wikipedia most likely saw it as if I was advertising vs. disseminating information from a neutral point of view. In my desperation at the moment I was ready to re-arrange my article in paragraph format and post it to Knol. However, while spending some time looking up the Department of State and the National Security Language Initiative, I had realized that the Critical Language Scholarship Program; one that has change my life, was completely absent. I was thrilled to have had my article accepted by Wikipedia, and in a matter of 12 hours somebody else had already gone on and added information to it. Furthermore, I sent the link to several CLS administrators, and one of them has sent me more information to add (since she apparently overdid it and they blocker her IP address). Removing my bias from the equation, I see Google Knol and Wikipedia as both being very valid sources of information. However, it depends on what exactly you're looking for. Knol appears to be more of a dumping-spot for information, and it advertises its authors, especially those who have good credentials. It is a good outlet for information, and open for sharing anything. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is meant to resemble an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be non-biased, and have its articles verifiable by multiple un-related sources. Thus, Google better resembles a blog, while Wikipedia resembles an editable and yet closely monitored stream of information. So personally, for learning purposes I would most likely use Wikipedia, but if I were to publish something or would simply like to share a compilation of information, Knol may be my chosen outlet.
When this assignment was introduced, my decision was to write for Wikipedia. I chose this because personally I use Wikipedia on a regular basis to look up quick-facts and information and contributing to this massive warehouse of information was something that had me interested. While my decision was already made, I was also curious to find out what Google Knol actually was; prior to the assignment I never even heard of it. Going for a nice dose of irony, I looked up Google Knol on Wikipedia to understand what the website was. I understand how some people may look for a competition from both the websites, but to me Knol and Wikipedia are two very different websites. Wikipedia demands cold hard facts; cited and supported cold cut statements with author neutrality and anonymity. Knol is very opposite, which holds zero rules on sources or neutral opinion. Essentially, anyone can write anything on Knol, where Wikipedia only allows regulated material. I can't imagine trying to look up a fact and using Knol. Wikipedia is simple and quick and for the most part, truthful (at least that is the goal). Knol is a powerful tool to see what people think about a very wide array of topics. Knol seems like a massive gathering of blogs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia may be less opinionated and possible less interesting, there is no doubt in my mind I would turn to it for information.
When this assignment was first given to us, I was actually excited to learn about Google Knol. I love Google as a whole with all the different tools they have. I actually used my Google account to sign into this blog. However, after exploring Google Knol more in depth, I was surprised to find that it is actually just the opposite of that when compared to Wikipedia; Less Depth. For some one that wants to immediately get their voice heard over the internet, Google Knol is just the thing. However, for some one who wants to research a topic that they know nothing about, then Wikipedia is the way to go. With that being said, I chose to post my article on Wikipedia. I find it more useful and personally use it more. While I knew it would be harder for my post to be kept up on the website, I still chose to add to the website that I personally enjoy using more. I also thought that just based of the fact that most of the people in class knew of Wikipedia but not of Google Knol, that my information, being a topic that most people do not know about, would be accessed by more people. With my topic being a band that I personally love, worked for, and are some of my best friends, I wanted to spread that same appreciation to as many people as I could.
The main difference between the website is that Google Knol is single pages about a topic and if some one wants to add to it, they either have to create another page or add a comment. This creates chaos and is very unorganized. Wikipedia is a single page that any one can edit and add to. This creates a page that not only supplies more information but also keeps its perfectly organized, as well as up to date.
After doing this project, I still choose to use Wikipedia when researching a topic. However it was nice to learn that Google has created something to compete with Wikipedia. While I will not choose to use Knol, I do still choose to use Google for almost everything else, such as searching websites, images, directions, calendars and contacts.
Writing for Google Knol is significantly easier than writing for Wikipedia. I originally set a goal to write my article for Wikipedia in hopes that it would be accepted. After looking into it further and finding out that the process was somewhat extensive and very heavily regulated and edited, I didn't think I could write an article good enough for the site. Also, writing for Google Knol was easier not just because of the lack of editing and regulation but it currently had absolutely nothing on the topic I wrote about. Because of this, I thought my article would serve a better purpose and be more helpful for Google Knol.
I always have used Wikipedia and before this assignment, I didn't even know what Google Knol was. Even so, had I not been an avid Wikipedia user, I would definitely choose this site over Google Knol just because of what I learned about its regulation and editing. Wikipedia has way more information than Google Knol and this information is way more accurate.
Although this experience opened my eyes to some of the possibilities of Google Knol, I am still not convinced that it is an idea that can be as useful as Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has very specific rules and a strict format that helps users who are not as skilled in publishing, to conform to the type of information organization standard that is common across the entire site. Whether or not this structure is the best way to present information, it is consistent and allows the reader to focus on what is being presented rather than the manner in which it is being presented. Google Knol does not follow a strict set of rules on how to present information; instead it is leaving that to the end user. Google does seem more functional in that a user can find the best way to present on their given topic, but that does not lend its self to basic encyclopedic information. I find it would be best not to judge these two sites in a binary type of setup. We don’t necessarily have to say, this one is better than this other one. What I have learned from looking more closely at each site is to look at them in the ways that they may function for the readers. If you look at Wikipedia strictly as an online encyclopedia and Google Knol as a place where a writer can share their knowledge from their point of view, then you can see that both sites can be very helpful in your learning. From my point of view, I see merit in the ideas behind both sites. In the vein of function for quick and easy use, I find Wikipedia much more functional. This holds true for most of the content when compared to Knol. On Knol, one frequently has to sift through poorly organized material to find some knowledge in what they are reading. I think Google had a good idea, and should continue to offer their service, as it may be useful in some ways, but I think the high standards of Wikipedia are what has made it the forerunner in online encyclopedic material.
I admit it. I was wrong. Prior to this assignment, I had two distinct opinions on both Google Knol and Wikipedia. I had never even heard of Google Knol and thus jumped to the conclusion that it then must not be a very good resource. I considered Wikipedia to be convenient and useful, yet unreliable when it came to dates and quotations. However, the online article assignment made me discover the error of my preconceived notions. I shouldn’t have dismissed Google Knol so rashly. Its intention is clearly not to be an online encyclopedia. Rather it is a forum, an online space for people to freely express their knowledge on any particular subject that they are experts on. Thus, it certainly is not a resource for quick facts but a site providing unique voices on a variety of topics. Knol serves individuals. Wikipedia, on the other hand, serves a collective. Anonymous entries are added to provide internet-users with unbiased and fact-supported information on a wide-range of subject areas. I was surprised [and delighted] by the strict regulations on submissions. Errors are inevitable on Wiki pages because anyone can serve as a writer and editor. However, these errors seem to be corrected very quickly once identified. The opportunity for anyone to be a Wikipedia contributor is a beautiful thing; it allows information on an infinite amount of topics to be at the fingertips of internet users world-wide. If I am in the mood to read an article from a distinct perspective, I shall turn to Google Knol. If I need tid-bit facts on a subject, Wikipedia is the site for me.
I enjoyed this writing assignment, and liked that we had the opportunity to write about something we were interested in and knew about. Originally, I was planning on writing for Wikipedia but the topic I chose was already covered in great detail. That being said, I decided to write for Google Knol, which gave me more freedom to form the writing how I wanted instead of editing it to fit someone else’s. After writing for Google Knol, I have a lot more respect for Wikipedia than I once did.
The main difference I noticed was that Google Knol ended up being a site where anyone could post whatever they wanted, whether it was fact or opinion. Wikipedia on the other hand, is an informational site and while anyone can also write, they have editors who take information down if it’s not credible or well written. This in turn adds to the credibility of the website. Another difference in the website is author recognition. The homepage of Google Knol has featured and popular authors as well as the ability to see a picture of what they look like before you click on reading their article. Wikipedia has featured articles, but there isn’t any emphasis on the author who wrote them. Also, on the homepage of Wikipedia, there are news stories and topics for the specific date you are viewing the site. Wikipedia’s set up is much more professional than Google Knol, which is set up more along the lines of a blog.
I still don’t think that Wikipedia is the best resource when you are researching a topic, but I do think it’s a great starting place. Whether it’s quickly finding information, or even looking at a more detailed article, it’s a good place to get basic information. While I will not be using Google Knol to look up information, I did find some really good recipes that I will be making. What it comes down to is that these two websites are handy for different subjects.
In writing our Wikipedia/Goolgle Knol article, I found I will continue to use Wikipedia. I chose to write for Google because their guidelines were less strict in terms of what you could write about, anybody and write anything on Google knoll. Google’s fault began when they expected their site to be only used by academic professionals whom are a creditable source. By no way of telling who is or not, Google’s website is now a collection of random thoughts and things from people who aren’t necessarily experts on the subject. On the other hand, Wikipedia surprised me with how creditable it could really be. I always was told to steer clear of this website because ANYONE could edit the information on any page at any given time. I learned that even if someone tried to credit or add incorrect info, Wikipedia’s team will fix the problem before most anyone would ever notice. On top of editing out the mistakes in the article, I learned that Wikipedia usually banns the person from writing articles on their website too. I like the visual and organizational format of Wikipedia better because it is much easier to look at and navigate through. Each overall topic has a page with detailed info and links to subtopics on Wikipedia. Google usually has small entries for small, specific topics. Even if there is one entry already about a topic on Google, someone else can type up their own version of the topic and post it on to their website. After posting my article onto Google, I had a hard time actually being able to find it. This really frustrated me! Google Knol to me seems like a unorganized, messy and stinky teenagers room. The clothes are everywhere and hard to find and when you do find something, it’s probably dirty.
When I was trying to write for these two sites, my writing was a lot more robotic. I was just trying to stick with the facts and leave my emotion and ideas out of it. Especially because my topic (about Hilliard rowing) was something that was really close to me and special to me. So it was hard to just be factual and try to leave my voice out of it. Also, because having facts were so important to this type of writing, it created a challenge. A lot of what I was writing was just knowledge for me, because I lived it and had no need to look up any of the information - I just knew it. And because I was talking about a very small rowing organization in Hilliard Ohio, there really weren't a lot of places to find information about it. Another challenged that I faced with this assignment was the fact that what I was writing was going public. That always makes me very nervous (which is weird because I have a facebook, and all of that is public as well, and I share a lot more personal opinions on there). Knowing that was I was writing would be seen by people I have never met, and judged by them, made writing it a lot harder as well. I also think that is a bigger part of the reason that I posted my article on Google Knol, because I knew they wouldn't take it off. With the heavy amount of revising that Wikipedia was going to do to my article, made the final decision for me to put my piece on Knol, because it was a sure thing that it would be posted (and that my assignment would be accepted). With knowing those two things, and using these two sites as a writer instead of for gathering information, it makes me feel better about using Wikipedia more. I don't really see a need to use Google Knol, because it is more like a blog with comments, rather than an encyclopedia for real factual information. Any fan of anything can post what they think, feel, believe on Knol, and it isn't really monitored, rather that the many views and critiques of Wikipedia. Also, because it is a lot harder to get your information on Wikipedia, it makes me feel better about using it, and makes me feel like the information on it is more factual. I really don't see a reason to use Knol for anything more than entertainment, where Wikipedia I can use to back up things.
Ever since we started talking about this assignment in class I knew I wanted to write for Wikipedia and not Google Knol. My choice wasn't based on the differences between the sites, my topic was the reason. I use wikipedia pretty frequently and I find it's information very useful. For my article I decided to write about the summer camp that I have been attending for the past 15 years with my family. I chose to write about this topic because on more than one occasion I have tired to look it up on wikipedia and found no matches. I have spent summers there camping with my family, along with 4 summers working as summer staff, so I would say I have some knowledge of the place.
Picking between Google Knol and Wikipedia was not a hard decision for me. I had never heard of Google Knol before it was addressed in this class, and after some research I wasn't too impressed. I have always wanted to post something to Wikipedia, and knew since this was a brand new topic, I would have a better chance of it staying posted. While it would have been easy to write a very bias article I wanted to post an article that was informational to the public about this place. Also, among those who camp there, few of them know the background history. I found the history very interesting and wanted it to be more accessible to the public. After making this decision I had to learn how to publish to Wiki. I have never actually posted to a blog like this before, so I had to learn the format, and make sure my article fit the typical wiki template. After a little research I figured it out, and I think I developed a pretty successful post. I hope that others who are familiar with Deer Valley will post on this wiki topic and it will grow.
After we talked about the two sites in class I did some more research and found that Google Knol is a place for mass information that allowed bias opinions. The information was more cluttered and hard to track down. On the other hand Wikipedia contains more information that is concrete and formal. The Wikipedia site is also more clean and easier to navigate. While I believe Wikipedia is more useful and I think I will continue to use it on a regular basis, I may turn to Google Knol every now and then if I want a public opinion on a topic.
When I first was assigned this paper, I immediately thought that I was going to choose to write for Wikipedia, simply because I knew and have heard of this site. To be honest, I had never heard of Google Knol, which surprises me because of how much our society and generation uses/depends on the internet today. After our class activity, I became 1) introduced to the idea of Google Knol and what it is about and 2) learned more about Wikipedia. The class activity absolutely shocked me-but in a good way! I always viewed Wiki as an unreliable source, something that you should never use for credible information. However, this online encyclopedia is highly regulated and “picky”. Not just anyone can successfully publish and edit information within the database.
After choosing my topic (Alpha Phi Omega), I decided to go with Google Knol because there was no current information regarding APO. When I searched for APO on wiki, there was already detailed information about the service fraternity. It would have been nearly impossible for me to add my own twist onto it, because wiki is not a forum for opinions. So, after realizing I was going to publish my article on Knol, I searched around the site to become familiar with not only the way it works, but also the tone and style that writers use on this site. My process on writing the article was pretty simple mainly because I didn’t have to worry about getting it approved first before I could publish it. Unlike Wiki, Knol contains factual information about a topic, but also can contain opinions . Wikipedia is simply used for factual based information, and by no means has bias information. Also, I think that Wiki is more organized and much easier to navigate than Knol. In order to figure out Knol, viewers need to spend some time to get adjusted to the layout and be able to find the topic they are searching for.
I am really happy that we did a writing assignment like this because I learned how both of these sites work and how they differ from one another. Also, I learned that Wiki is a reliable source and the information on there is not completely bogus, as some people perceive it to be. In the future, I am more likely to use Wiki just because the information is more factual, rather than opinion based. However, it is not to say that I would never used Knol. Google Knol would be an excellent site to gain information about a topic and see how the public perceives something. However, being a college student, I would probably turn to Wikipedia more often because of my school work.
Upon first receiving this assignment in class, I had never even heard of Google Knol. Once I visited the site for the first time, I couldn't help but dislike it after there were no results for my first three searches. Ohio University didn't even come up on Knol search results! I knew from that point on that I had no use for Google Knol.From my perspective, Knol did not seem as if it were intended for academic use as much as entertainment purposes. Another factor in making my choice to use Wikipedia instead of Knol came with the popularity of the site. I knew that I would be able to make a more beneficial contribution by choosing Wikipedia due to the fact that it will be seen by more readers. As I mentioned earlier, Google Knoll is not the most prestigious website compared to the amount of users who turn to Wikipedia for information. By using Wikipedia, I felt that the information I provide will be seen. The most challenging part of the assignment was the worry of Wikipedia removing the post. That was the major risk in using Wikipedia in the first place due to its high security moderation. The information had to be properly cited in the right location or a letter would pop up in my inbox giving me 15 hours to correct. My topic of choice is not a very broad topic so it was tough locating information to quote. Most of information on Oak Hill High School Athletic Facilities was provided from my own knowledge but I still had to search further for more in depth detail.
I was satisfied with my choice in using Wikipedia because I was able to contribute a specific topic on the subject instead of having to create an entire new page. I feel that it was a beneficial contribution to the Wikipedia page because it added more detail to the main topic and gave a good amount of factual information. I certainly will continue to use Wikipedia more often than Knol but can still view it as a positive. It just seems to me that Wikipedia provides more in depth, factual information.
The experiences I gained from writing for Google Knol were actually rewarding. I used to always wonder how it would feel to publish or do a blog on a website that thousands of internet users look at and read each day. When we were in class doing the search for topics on Wikipedia and Google, I noticed a significant difference of how each website it set up and the information that is offered between the two. I saw that Wikipedia was a lot more in depth with their information and had a lot statistical and numerical information that is beneficial to the person researching a topic. Google Knol was a bit vague in regards to the topics that we were researched. From what I found on Google was a lack of in depth information. Google Knol just gave a broad scope of what the publisher said. After looking at both of these, most people would think and say, "Yea, I am going to do Wikipedia." I on the other hand thought that if I did Google Knol and presented the topic very well and described into detail what it was, I would feel pretty good about myself. Since I did a topic about Greek strolling and stepping, and the gap between the two, I presented the topic very well and broke it down to what strolling is and the origins of where it came from. By doing so I thought a lot of users on Google Knol would read my publishing and comment on it and give me positive feedback. Eventually I would like to do Wikipedia when I become a more proficient writer, and continue to improve on the mistakes that I make when writing for my classes and major papers. Wikipedia has always been the reliable site for research when we were all in middle school, but now that were college students we know the difference between Google and Wikipedia, and how the publishing's are actually done.
ReplyDeleteI chose to write for the Google Knol site because of it user friendly style where you could post an article that is composed of purely the authors ideas without fear of it being removed and/or edited by Google Knol itself or by another author. This difference is the primary difference between the two sites. When you post something on Google Knol its purely the authors word. However when you post something on Wikipedia it is the combined knowledge of those that use the internet. This constant editing and fact checking of all the posted articles on Wikipedia makes for a much for truthful site which on turn makes it much more useful to the average person searching for information about a topic that they do not already have the extensive knowledge needed to see through the authors word and be able to trust the information that is being presented to them.
ReplyDeleteEven though I posted to Google Knol I would not use this site for any kind of resource. This is because I prefer to have the information as accurate as possible in order to find the information that I need and be able to believe it much more easily than having to search many posts and figure out the truthful information. To me Google Knol is more of a formalized blog site where people can post anything that they want to and have it stand on its own without fear of it being changed by others.
From the moment that we began this assignment I told myself that I was going to cater my assignment to Wikipedia. This was mostly for the fact that I have always wanted to write a Wikipedia article (I've been known to spend hours meandering throughout Wikipedia), and in all honesty I knew nothing about Google Knol until this class. Interestingly, though, prior to this assignment I had no idea exactly how difficult it can be to have an article accepted on Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteI began this assignment with a great debate on what article would actually be accepted on Wikipedia. Out of a variety of subjects which I can possibly be an expert on, only two seemed to not be present on Wikipedia; my student organization here at OU, and a night-club in Cleveland which I greatly enjoy attending when I am home. Ultimately, I chose my student organization. To my great disappointment, Wikipedia did not accept my article...my sources were things like newspaper articles and directories, and Wikipedia most likely saw it as if I was advertising vs. disseminating information from a neutral point of view. In my desperation at the moment I was ready to re-arrange my article in paragraph format and post it to Knol. However, while spending some time looking up the Department of State and the National Security Language Initiative, I had realized that the Critical Language Scholarship Program; one that has change my life, was completely absent.
I was thrilled to have had my article accepted by Wikipedia, and in a matter of 12 hours somebody else had already gone on and added information to it. Furthermore, I sent the link to several CLS administrators, and one of them has sent me more information to add (since she apparently overdid it and they blocker her IP address).
Removing my bias from the equation, I see Google Knol and Wikipedia as both being very valid sources of information. However, it depends on what exactly you're looking for. Knol appears to be more of a dumping-spot for information, and it advertises its authors, especially those who have good credentials. It is a good outlet for information, and open for sharing anything. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is meant to resemble an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be non-biased, and have its articles verifiable by multiple un-related sources.
Thus, Google better resembles a blog, while Wikipedia resembles an editable and yet closely monitored stream of information.
So personally, for learning purposes I would most likely use Wikipedia, but if I were to publish something or would simply like to share a compilation of information, Knol may be my chosen outlet.
When this assignment was introduced, my decision was to write for Wikipedia. I chose this because personally I use Wikipedia on a regular basis to look up quick-facts and information and contributing to this massive warehouse of information was something that had me interested. While my decision was already made, I was also curious to find out what Google Knol actually was; prior to the assignment I never even heard of it. Going for a nice dose of irony, I looked up Google Knol on Wikipedia to understand what the website was.
ReplyDeleteI understand how some people may look for a competition from both the websites, but to me Knol and Wikipedia are two very different websites. Wikipedia demands cold hard facts; cited and supported cold cut statements with author neutrality and anonymity. Knol is very opposite, which holds zero rules on sources or neutral opinion. Essentially, anyone can write anything on Knol, where Wikipedia only allows regulated material. I can't imagine trying to look up a fact and using Knol. Wikipedia is simple and quick and for the most part, truthful (at least that is the goal). Knol is a powerful tool to see what people think about a very wide array of topics. Knol seems like a massive gathering of blogs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Although Wikipedia may be less opinionated and possible less interesting, there is no doubt in my mind I would turn to it for information.
When this assignment was first given to us, I was actually excited to learn about Google Knol. I love Google as a whole with all the different tools they have. I actually used my Google account to sign into this blog. However, after exploring Google Knol more in depth, I was surprised to find that it is actually just the opposite of that when compared to Wikipedia; Less Depth. For some one that wants to immediately get their voice heard over the internet, Google Knol is just the thing. However, for some one who wants to research a topic that they know nothing about, then Wikipedia is the way to go. With that being said, I chose to post my article on Wikipedia. I find it more useful and personally use it more. While I knew it would be harder for my post to be kept up on the website, I still chose to add to the website that I personally enjoy using more. I also thought that just based of the fact that most of the people in class knew of Wikipedia but not of Google Knol, that my information, being a topic that most people do not know about, would be accessed by more people. With my topic being a band that I personally love, worked for, and are some of my best friends, I wanted to spread that same appreciation to as many people as I could.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between the website is that Google Knol is single pages about a topic and if some one wants to add to it, they either have to create another page or add a comment. This creates chaos and is very unorganized. Wikipedia is a single page that any one can edit and add to. This creates a page that not only supplies more information but also keeps its perfectly organized, as well as up to date.
After doing this project, I still choose to use Wikipedia when researching a topic. However it was nice to learn that Google has created something to compete with Wikipedia. While I will not choose to use Knol, I do still choose to use Google for almost everything else, such as searching websites, images, directions, calendars and contacts.
Writing for Google Knol is significantly easier than writing for Wikipedia. I originally set a goal to write my article for Wikipedia in hopes that it would be accepted. After looking into it further and finding out that the process was somewhat extensive and very heavily regulated and edited, I didn't think I could write an article good enough for the site. Also, writing for Google Knol was easier not just because of the lack of editing and regulation but it currently had absolutely nothing on the topic I wrote about. Because of this, I thought my article would serve a better purpose and be more helpful for Google Knol.
ReplyDeleteI always have used Wikipedia and before this assignment, I didn't even know what Google Knol was. Even so, had I not been an avid Wikipedia user, I would definitely choose this site over Google Knol just because of what I learned about its regulation and editing. Wikipedia has way more information than Google Knol and this information is way more accurate.
Although this experience opened my eyes to some of the possibilities of Google Knol, I am still not convinced that it is an idea that can be as useful as Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has very specific rules and a strict format that helps users who are not as skilled in publishing, to conform to the type of information organization standard that is common across the entire site. Whether or not this structure is the best way to present information, it is consistent and allows the reader to focus on what is being presented rather than the manner in which it is being presented.
ReplyDeleteGoogle Knol does not follow a strict set of rules on how to present information; instead it is leaving that to the end user. Google does seem more functional in that a user can find the best way to present on their given topic, but that does not lend its self to basic encyclopedic information.
I find it would be best not to judge these two sites in a binary type of setup. We don’t necessarily have to say, this one is better than this other one. What I have learned from looking more closely at each site is to look at them in the ways that they may function for the readers. If you look at Wikipedia strictly as an online encyclopedia and Google Knol as a place where a writer can share their knowledge from their point of view, then you can see that both sites can be very helpful in your learning.
From my point of view, I see merit in the ideas behind both sites. In the vein of function for quick and easy use, I find Wikipedia much more functional. This holds true for most of the content when compared to Knol. On Knol, one frequently has to sift through poorly organized material to find some knowledge in what they are reading. I think Google had a good idea, and should continue to offer their service, as it may be useful in some ways, but I think the high standards of Wikipedia are what has made it the forerunner in online encyclopedic material.
I admit it. I was wrong. Prior to this assignment, I had two distinct opinions on both Google Knol and Wikipedia. I had never even heard of Google Knol and thus jumped to the conclusion that it then must not be a very good resource. I considered Wikipedia to be convenient and useful, yet unreliable when it came to dates and quotations. However, the online article assignment made me discover the error of my preconceived notions. I shouldn’t have dismissed Google Knol so rashly. Its intention is clearly not to be an online encyclopedia. Rather it is a forum, an online space for people to freely express their knowledge on any particular subject that they are experts on. Thus, it certainly is not a resource for quick facts but a site providing unique voices on a variety of topics. Knol serves individuals. Wikipedia, on the other hand, serves a collective. Anonymous entries are added to provide internet-users with unbiased and fact-supported information on a wide-range of subject areas. I was surprised [and delighted] by the strict regulations on submissions. Errors are inevitable on Wiki pages because anyone can serve as a writer and editor. However, these errors seem to be corrected very quickly once identified. The opportunity for anyone to be a Wikipedia contributor is a beautiful thing; it allows information on an infinite amount of topics to be at the fingertips of internet users world-wide. If I am in the mood to read an article from a distinct perspective, I shall turn to Google Knol. If I need tid-bit facts on a subject, Wikipedia is the site for me.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this writing assignment, and liked that we had the opportunity to write about something we were interested in and knew about. Originally, I was planning on writing for Wikipedia but the topic I chose was already covered in great detail. That being said, I decided to write for Google Knol, which gave me more freedom to form the writing how I wanted instead of editing it to fit someone else’s. After writing for Google Knol, I have a lot more respect for Wikipedia than I once did.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference I noticed was that Google Knol ended up being a site where anyone could post whatever they wanted, whether it was fact or opinion. Wikipedia on the other hand, is an informational site and while anyone can also write, they have editors who take information down if it’s not credible or well written. This in turn adds to the credibility of the website. Another difference in the website is author recognition. The homepage of Google Knol has featured and popular authors as well as the ability to see a picture of what they look like before you click on reading their article. Wikipedia has featured articles, but there isn’t any emphasis on the author who wrote them. Also, on the homepage of Wikipedia, there are news stories and topics for the specific date you are viewing the site. Wikipedia’s set up is much more professional than Google Knol, which is set up more along the lines of a blog.
I still don’t think that Wikipedia is the best resource when you are researching a topic, but I do think it’s a great starting place. Whether it’s quickly finding information, or even looking at a more detailed article, it’s a good place to get basic information. While I will not be using Google Knol to look up information, I did find some really good recipes that I will be making. What it comes down to is that these two websites are handy for different subjects.
In writing our Wikipedia/Goolgle Knol article, I found I will continue to use Wikipedia. I chose to write for Google because their guidelines were less strict in terms of what you could write about, anybody and write anything on Google knoll. Google’s fault began when they expected their site to be only used by academic professionals whom are a creditable source. By no way of telling who is or not, Google’s website is now a collection of random thoughts and things from people who aren’t necessarily experts on the subject. On the other hand, Wikipedia surprised me with how creditable it could really be. I always was told to steer clear of this website because ANYONE could edit the information on any page at any given time. I learned that even if someone tried to credit or add incorrect info, Wikipedia’s team will fix the problem before most anyone would ever notice. On top of editing out the mistakes in the article, I learned that Wikipedia usually banns the person from writing articles on their website too. I like the visual and organizational format of Wikipedia better because it is much easier to look at and navigate through. Each overall topic has a page with detailed info and links to subtopics on Wikipedia. Google usually has small entries for small, specific topics. Even if there is one entry already about a topic on Google, someone else can type up their own version of the topic and post it on to their website. After posting my article onto Google, I had a hard time actually being able to find it. This really frustrated me! Google Knol to me seems like a unorganized, messy and stinky teenagers room. The clothes are everywhere and hard to find and when you do find something, it’s probably dirty.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was trying to write for these two sites, my writing was a lot more robotic. I was just trying to stick with the facts and leave my emotion and ideas out of it. Especially because my topic (about Hilliard rowing) was something that was really close to me and special to me. So it was hard to just be factual and try to leave my voice out of it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, because having facts were so important to this type of writing, it created a challenge. A lot of what I was writing was just knowledge for me, because I lived it and had no need to look up any of the information - I just knew it. And because I was talking about a very small rowing organization in Hilliard Ohio, there really weren't a lot of places to find information about it.
Another challenged that I faced with this assignment was the fact that what I was writing was going public. That always makes me very nervous (which is weird because I have a facebook, and all of that is public as well, and I share a lot more personal opinions on there). Knowing that was I was writing would be seen by people I have never met, and judged by them, made writing it a lot harder as well. I also think that is a bigger part of the reason that I posted my article on Google Knol, because I knew they wouldn't take it off. With the heavy amount of revising that Wikipedia was going to do to my article, made the final decision for me to put my piece on Knol, because it was a sure thing that it would be posted (and that my assignment would be accepted).
With knowing those two things, and using these two sites as a writer instead of for gathering information, it makes me feel better about using Wikipedia more. I don't really see a need to use Google Knol, because it is more like a blog with comments, rather than an encyclopedia for real factual information. Any fan of anything can post what they think, feel, believe on Knol, and it isn't really monitored, rather that the many views and critiques of Wikipedia. Also, because it is a lot harder to get your information on Wikipedia, it makes me feel better about using it, and makes me feel like the information on it is more factual. I really don't see a reason to use Knol for anything more than entertainment, where Wikipedia I can use to back up things.
Ever since we started talking about this assignment in class I knew I wanted to write for Wikipedia and not Google Knol. My choice wasn't based on the differences between the sites, my topic was the reason. I use wikipedia pretty frequently and I find it's information very useful. For my article I decided to write about the summer camp that I have been attending for the past 15 years with my family. I chose to write about this topic because on more than one occasion I have tired to look it up on wikipedia and found no matches. I have spent summers there camping with my family, along with 4 summers working as summer staff, so I would say I have some knowledge of the place.
ReplyDeletePicking between Google Knol and Wikipedia was not a hard decision for me. I had never heard of Google Knol before it was addressed in this class, and after some research I wasn't too impressed. I have always wanted to post something to Wikipedia, and knew since this was a brand new topic, I would have a better chance of it staying posted. While it would have been easy to write a very bias article I wanted to post an article that was informational to the public about this place. Also, among those who camp there, few of them know the background history. I found the history very interesting and wanted it to be more accessible to the public. After making this decision I had to learn how to publish to Wiki. I have never actually posted to a blog like this before, so I had to learn the format, and make sure my article fit the typical wiki template. After a little research I figured it out, and I think I developed a pretty successful post. I hope that others who are familiar with Deer Valley will post on this wiki topic and it will grow.
After we talked about the two sites in class I did some more research and found that Google Knol is a place for mass information that allowed bias opinions. The information was more cluttered and hard to track down. On the other hand Wikipedia contains more information that is concrete and formal. The Wikipedia site is also more clean and easier to navigate. While I believe Wikipedia is more useful and I think I will continue to use it on a regular basis, I may turn to Google Knol every now and then if I want a public opinion on a topic.
When I first was assigned this paper, I immediately thought that I was going to choose to write for Wikipedia, simply because I knew and have heard of this site. To be honest, I had never heard of Google Knol, which surprises me because of how much our society and generation uses/depends on the internet today. After our class activity, I became 1) introduced to the idea of Google Knol and what it is about and 2) learned more about Wikipedia. The class activity absolutely shocked me-but in a good way! I always viewed Wiki as an unreliable source, something that you should never use for credible information. However, this online encyclopedia is highly regulated and “picky”. Not just anyone can successfully publish and edit information within the database.
ReplyDeleteAfter choosing my topic (Alpha Phi Omega), I decided to go with Google Knol because there was no current information regarding APO. When I searched for APO on wiki, there was already detailed information about the service fraternity. It would have been nearly impossible for me to add my own twist onto it, because wiki is not a forum for opinions. So, after realizing I was going to publish my article on Knol, I searched around the site to become familiar with not only the way it works, but also the tone and style that writers use on this site. My process on writing the article was pretty simple mainly because I didn’t have to worry about getting it approved first before I could publish it. Unlike Wiki, Knol contains factual information about a topic, but also can contain opinions . Wikipedia is simply used for factual based information, and by no means has bias information. Also, I think that Wiki is more organized and much easier to navigate than Knol. In order to figure out Knol, viewers need to spend some time to get adjusted to the layout and be able to find the topic they are searching for.
I am really happy that we did a writing assignment like this because I learned how both of these sites work and how they differ from one another. Also, I learned that Wiki is a reliable source and the information on there is not completely bogus, as some people perceive it to be. In the future, I am more likely to use Wiki just because the information is more factual, rather than opinion based. However, it is not to say that I would never used Knol. Google Knol would be an excellent site to gain information about a topic and see how the public perceives something. However, being a college student, I would probably turn to Wikipedia more often because of my school work.
Upon first receiving this assignment in class, I had never even heard of Google Knol. Once I visited the site for the first time, I couldn't help but dislike it after there were no results for my first three searches. Ohio University didn't even come up on Knol search results! I knew from that point on that I had no use for Google Knol.From my perspective, Knol did not seem as if it were intended for academic use as much as entertainment purposes.
ReplyDeleteAnother factor in making my choice to use Wikipedia instead of Knol came with the popularity of the site. I knew that I would be able to make a more beneficial contribution by choosing Wikipedia due to the fact that it will be seen by more readers. As I mentioned earlier, Google Knoll is not the most prestigious website compared to the amount of users who turn to Wikipedia for information. By using Wikipedia, I felt that the information I provide will be seen.
The most challenging part of the assignment was the worry of Wikipedia removing the post. That was the major risk in using Wikipedia in the first place due to its high security moderation. The information had to be properly cited in the right location or a letter would pop up in my inbox giving me 15 hours to correct. My topic of choice is not a very broad topic so it was tough locating information to quote. Most of information on Oak Hill High School Athletic Facilities was provided from my own knowledge but I still had to search further for more in depth detail.
I was satisfied with my choice in using Wikipedia because I was able to contribute a specific topic on the subject instead of having to create an entire new page. I feel that it was a beneficial contribution to the Wikipedia page because it added more detail to the main topic and gave a good amount of factual information. I certainly will continue to use Wikipedia more often than Knol but can still view it as a positive. It just seems to me that Wikipedia provides more in depth, factual information.