Here is the story:

http://www.physorg.com/news116912099.html

The major difference of Google's version is that it will identify the source of the units of knowledge. If you write something for googipedia, you get your face and name plastered beside the article. I think this is a good idea.

In these forums I will often skip over many responses until I see a name that I believe is trustworthy. Trust is keenly important in science - knowledge depends on trust, as does truth. While doubt and skepticism navigate through the waters of possibility, filtering out all the impossible from the actual, it is trust and acceptance that navigate the seas of human communication. I have to trust you in order to efficiently exchange information with you. I can only do this once my doubt has been waylaid. Otherwise doubt increases the amount of time and energy it takes for us to exchange information (because I've got to sort things out first before I believe you.) More trust = less processing time between interactions. The flow of information increases.

If Google can create a base of trustworthy authority figures, this will be a massive step beyond wikipedia. It has been argued that we are losing our authority figures to our detriment in this information age, because self-expression predominates over any kind of censor/filter.

http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Interne...e/dp/0385520808

Trusted sources are invaluable. If googipedia could also be peer-reviewed, then we'd be on to something. Any thoughts out there?

Or perhaps it is just that 'authority figures' are no longer trustworthy, thereby being the creators of their own downfall?

Perhaps if we were to learn to trust ourselves, firstly, we could then move on to 'others'?


You see, I agree that trust means an awful lot, but we cannot trust another until we learn to trust ourselves, and who is the 'authority' teaching that?

I like your sig. by the way!

Sometimes people prefer anomnity, but I guess you can't really tell what's right or not on Wikipedia (But so far I haven't found anything too questionable). But, noting the author of the article won't be that much of an advantage. It wouldn't be hard to fake expertise in a subject on Knol, and half the time it won't be experts writing the article. It might help, but not that much.

- Gehn

Practically speaking, trust is a social interaction (a process that requires more than one active entity). You learn to trust your parents over yourself as a child. "Don't put your hand in the fire, Billy." Then you go and do it anyway, and in the process learn to trust your parents. Having them tell you trustworthy things, and then believing them, is more efficient than learning everything the hard way.

I would also argue (philosophically) that no one should ever trust themselves completely. Trust is an outgoing force that validates what comes inward, not the other way around. Trusting yourself has no practical value. Self-verification is redundant. This is why community is important.

The only thing this will enable is for readers to see when experts contribute to pages. But I doubt it will do anything about the accuracy of the knowledge bank itself. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be just as accurate as encyl britannica, or something?

It would also be unfortunate if the words of noted experts were valued over less-known names, even if those less-known individuals were correct. At least anyone can edit wikipedia.