Vetiver Information - Wikipedia vs. Google Knols
Monday, October 5, 2009 Labels: Vetiver Information - Wikipedia vs. Google Knols 2 comments----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Wikipedia Ends - That is the link to the article in the September 28, 2009 issue of TIME magazine reflecting on the slowing down of the growth in Wikipedia content. Many explanations are discussed, but the core problem is that, " . . . as Wikipedia has added layers of control to bolster accuracy and fairness, it has developed a kind of bureaucracy." TIME also stated that "Over time, though, a class system emerged; now revisions made by infrequent contributors are much likelier to be undone by élite Wikipedians."
Tell me about it! This past April, one of these élite storm troopers took it upon himself to break up the Vetiver information into separate entries about the Vetiver plant and the Vetiver System. In itself, this was not a bad idea; but in the process, this "editor" removed all the information on the Vetiver System leaving just a stub of little value.
For more than a month I jousted with this self-appointed Wikipoliceman, attempting to restore all the content, references, and links that were there before. At every step, he would undo my work citing unending arguments about copyrights, writing style (I was not being encyclopedic), rules about links and references (no links to blogs or community groups), and many other hurdles that only added to the annoyance and not to the content. In the end, to my frustration, the Wikipedia page for the Vetiver System was left with no more than a lame explanation, no pictures, and few sources of additional information for the reader.
Fortunately, Google has come up with a much friendlier alternative for the publication of documents authored by a joint community of writers. The Google Knols, is a "crowdsourcing" tool based on the publication of full documents - not just encyclopedic entries. In my opinion, the various Vetiver blogs on the Internet should present short and simple discussions of a very focused subject or event. The knols, on the other hand, can provide depth and detail on more complex subjects and be open to community scrutiny and revision.
I am pleased to report that I am authoring a growing collection of knols on the Vetiver plant and the Vetiver System, that I have listed in The Vetiver System Knol Collection. This knol acts as a table of contents to all the other publications about Vetiver and is the recommended entry point to view the articles.
The Internet is about making information easily shared. That is no longer true of Wikipedia, and for me, Google Knols is the place where I will make meaningful information available in the future without unnecessary restrictions. TIME ended by saying, " . . . these changes (in Wikipedia laws) have created a community not very hospitable to newcomers." I could not agree more.
Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
I think I'm the "élite storm trooper" you're referring to in your blog entry.
The core problem in your contribution to the Vetiver System article is that you are not a neutral third party -- you and your company are clearly invested in the success of the Vetiver System and as such are not well placed to produce what we call in Wikipedia jargon an article with a "Neutral Point of View".
Best,
-s
Seeing as trooper macrakis has chosen to identify himself, I must reply that the term "Neutral Point of View" was never used during his overzealous editorial control. As many other contributors, I gave up on Wikipedia because of people like him. TIME magazine has said it a lot better than I can do it here.