Google has been testing a new product called Knol
is intended to be a site where authoritative
articles on specific topics are available. These articles are written by people "who know all about those subjects." According to the Official Google Blog
, "every know will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content."
At first glance there appears to be a lot of health care information on Knol
. One of the Feature Knols
is Migraine: Mechanisms and Management
,by Richard Kraig
topics include Tuberculosis
, and many more. From what I can tell many are written by physicians based on the brief author information on each knol
. However, I found many authors did not provide Knol
with their biographical information, leaving me to question whether the friendly face in the picture really is a physician and if so what their qualifications are. Additionally, Knol
has no specific guidelines as to what somebody could publish.Introduction to Knol
"So what subjects can I write on?
(Almost) anything you like. You pick the subject and write it the way you
see fit. We don't edit knols nor do we try to enforce any particular viewpoint –
your knol should be written as you want it to be written."
Read Write Web's article, Knol: Google Takes on Wikipedia
, provides a nice overview of Knol
and mentions that authors can validate their identity on Knol
through either a credit card or a phone number. I am less than impressed by this method of validation. I would much rather see some in depth
information as to why I should trust Dr. Smart Brain's knol
on congestive heart failure vs. Dr. Also Smart on the same knol
. You see not only are there no stringent author requirements for posting medical information, but there can be more than one knol
on a topic. Great for restaurant and hotel reviews, but potentially confusing (at best) for medical information.
seems at all familiar then you may have heard about Medpedia
, which was recently posted on David Rothman's blog
who noted that he saw no criteria for the acceptance of applications for submitting to Medpedia
. In a comment to David's post, Angela Simmen said
"We are confident that a large number of passionate people — some with medical credentials and some without credentials — can collaborate to produce something of very high quality. We also believe that the result of their work will do a better job of answering the general public’s questions than the most popular medical websites of today." Fine and dandy, but what happens if you have an author writing an popular point of view or writes about a controversial topic. There are plenty of passionate people who view early child immunization shots as a direct contributor to autism. Almost equally controversial is the debate on circumcision. Those are just two examples, and we haven't even scratched the surface with drug trials. Need we forget that at one time rofecoxib
) was used to treat osteoarthritis and was approved and thought safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration only later to be pulled by the manufacturer concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use.
David has also done a very nice job of compiling a list of medical wikis
. Speaking as a consumer (let's forget for a second that I am also a librarian), I would be extremely concerned that neither of these two sites (as well as other medical wikis
) do not have any authorship controls. Excellent websites post their authors' credentials and an excellent wiki should also require authors to provide appropriate credentials
does this, only "licensed clinical professionals who have proven their credentials to the satisfaction of editors," are allowed to contribute. I would challenge all other professional medical wikis
to do the same and create some actual standards and criteria for posting.
Labels: Social Software, Technology, web2.0, Wiki