How many lectures and seminars have you attended that sounded a lot like this one?

Five days ago, Google announced a new initiative they are calling the Knol. This post explains why I think this is a bad move as Knol currently stands.

This excerpt from the announcement sums up Knol, but of course read the whole thing:

Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling “knol”, which stands for a unit of knowledge. Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it. The tool is still in development and this is just the first phase of testing. For now, using it is by invitation only. But we wanted to share with everyone the basic premises and goals behind this project.

There is a very big, yet hidden, problem with this Knol model. To understand it, we need to re-cap how science works and how the scientific blogosphere works.

Science is about the debate that leads to the consensus. A paper by an expert has to stand on the evidence it has unearthed. If it doesn’t, it is ignored. If the evidence sounds reasonable and other pieces of evidence support it, then a scientific theory emerges. This becomes a consensus that is always, and I mean always, under attack. If new evidence emerges that challenges the status quo, the theory is modified or, sometimes, completely re-written.

To take a simple example: I have an encyclopedia from the 1890s that defines hysteria as an ailment of the womb. Indeed, the word hysterectomy is derived from the same root. According to dictionary.com, the word’s origin reflects "the Greeks’ belief that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances in the uterus)". Now we know that’s not true because evidence has emerged since then and changed our understanding.

Now onto the science blogosphere. A huge problem in the science blogosphere is what’s called "blogging from authority" where a blogger claims ultimate knowledge because they are a PhD, or an expert, or whatnot, and so everything they say becomes the truth. A good science blog post will always reference papers and link to other discussions (like those hosted on the Lancet journal’s website). The post should explain the evidence and should explain the background and why the new evidence is interesting. A bad science blog post will state the opinions of the blogger - who may know quite a bit! - but does not stand on the shoulder of evidence. The danger here is that the blogger, as an authority, will be disseminating false information that does not reflect current scientific thinking. If this relates to subjects like health and medicine, this could actually be dangerous! A great example of this kind of behavior is the creationism crap authority bloggers spew in the name of "science".

Incidentally, this is exactly the behavior Google is aiming at! From their announcement (linked to above):

The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. … somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors names highlighted. We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content.

So where does Knol fall? I see several problems:

• Who chooses the authorities that are to write Knols? Affiliation to a top-notch university (or department) is not enough. The announcement even states "Anyone will be free to write" once the testing is finished.
• Who will be able to tell if the authority speaks from the voice of evidence or from personal opinion? Sure a disagreeing person can write a new Knol, and, assuming a flame-war doesn’t break out, who is to judge which one is correct? Certainly not the searchers as they are the ones seeking information!
• This point is about peer review: the knols, as far as we know, will not have peer or editorial review. Just don’t call them science; they’re more like London’s Speakers’ Corners.
• Suppose that a Knol is written and it’s actually a good reflection of current scientific thought. Now suppose new evidence emerges to change the information contained in the Knol. Who’s going to change that? What if the author cannot for some reason. Yes people can submit comments and edits (the announcement said so) but we have no idea how these will be incorporated into the knol’s body.

So where does this leave us? I think Knol is a dangerous move because there are a lot of pitfalls to avoid and the announcement hinted that Google has no clue to their existence. Until I see evidence otherwise, my stance is that Google Knol is a bad idea. It’s Google’s job to convince me otherwise, and I think many others.

More comments at PhysOrg and Greg Laden’s Blog.