I'm not opposed to it, but I think the Wikipedia model is generally more useful, because the content is reached by consensus (in theory) and attribution is not a motivating factor (in theory). Now, the disadvantages of Wikipedia are that competing voices are not necessarily heard, and that - due to anonymity - the credibility can be questioned. With the Knol model, competing viewpoints can be shared, but it may become truly cumbersome. The clear attribution of authors should encourage truthfullness, and make it easier for someone to determine credibility. On the other hand, people may be less likely to contribute to controversial topics. This model should definitely be explored - let's see where the chips fall.
|