A ‘knol’ is essentially a single unit of knowledge and so is similar to a learning object. Stephen Downes points out that Wikipedia articles can also be regarded as learning objects. However the similarity between the two systems ends here as Google Knols attributes the article to a specific author (similar to Citizendium – here) unlike Wikipedia which cites no particular person and in doing so emphases many voiced collaboration over the single expert. As Downes states this seems to be a backward step for Google since the system was built on the recommendations by many in the first place.

Here’s the link to Google’s outline (Web Link) with a picture here (Web Link). Worth reading if you’re into social software. The final article has no wiki-type collaboration element, so unlike a wiki there’s no multi authorship. Usually wikis are cited as being capable of producing reliable and balanced articles through the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ argument in that the views of many will provide greater insight than the views of the few. It could be argued that this cannot occur within a Google Knol article as only one single person is involved. So there is a question of article reliability, bias and integrity. Interestingly Google have gone some way to solve this by allowing readers to submit questions, new content and suggested edits. But the article author does have the final say in terms of how new content is added. What ‘saves’ the situation is that readers can also rate the article similar to that of YouTube videos and even write reviews.

So I guess the higher the rating the more reliable the article? No doubt this will be reflected in Google search results.
Worth keeping tabs on to find out if this will be the case.