Is Google's Knowledge Graph Good or Evil?

I believe the basic concept is great, and I really don't see a downside at this time.

If you think it's going to be an improvement just try living in the UK and trying to find presents or information for family (including grandchildren) in the USA.

Oddly it's a lot cheaper to get a return ticket from the USA to the UK than it is from the UK to the USA.... BUT try finding out what it's going to cost someone flying from the USA to the UK when you are connected to google in the UK, it doesn't work and we are finding out for our Aunt Denise(71) and maybe Great Aunt Patsy (88).

Anything that takes away the basics of putting in the RIGHT data to get a CORRECT answer doesn't work.

My vote is for EVIL!

So what you are saying is that this Google Knowledge Graph has Mick Jagger, but not Jesus? Hmmm...perhaps it does have "Sympathy for the Devil!"

In all seriousness, thank you for explaining what this new graph does. I have shared your findings with several co-workers at the school where I work, who help students do internet research.

Knowing that the graph itself can skew a piece of research is important to know.

Thanks again,
Jennie Hale

As you say "spelling, punctuation, grammar and proper use of UPPER/lower case are important!" That's why I wonder if you did mean "is Google's Knowledge Graph breaking the compact"?
Or was it about a contract? :-)
Kind regards,
J-M

Been a while since I used 'Google' so I thought I'd give it a try...

First try for 'mick j', I got the same results you did. I bet Mick Jones is ticked-off!

Second try for 'mick j', I got no 'Knowledge Graph' at all.

Anything Google related brings up the latest entry on 'Google+'.

Interesting, but not enough to bring me back (yet).

Not the first time someone has tried to graph the world of all known INFORMATION but called it KNOWLEDGE. After all this time I would have thought Google would know the difference between knowledge and information but I guess not. Funny, with all the information at their disosal they don't know the difference between the two.

In their video introducing this project (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not.html) Google puts it this way:

"We're in the early phases of moving from being an information engine to becoming a knowledge engine. And these enhancements are one step in that direction."

That's gotta be good! And it's also a project whose immensity boggles my mind.

DEAR BOB RANKIN.... AND READERS....
GOOGLE ONCE AGAIN BREAKS THE KNOWLEDGE BARRIER OR SOUND BARRIER.... AND MAINTAINS OR INCREASES ITS EDGE AS THE SMARTEST AND MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ENTITY ON EARTH....
SPACE-AGE GERSHON....

"Where is the widom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" - Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965)

I never believed their "do no evil" mantra in the first place. Think I'll be sticking with DuckDuckGo.

I saw the founder of Google interviewed the other day on Charlie Rose over PBS. He was giddy over the prospects of their new project and its potential.
When caller-ID first came out, a hardware store answered the phone addressing the caller by name ("Hello, Mr Smith, how can we help you today?").
The callers were turned off because the Hello they got invaded their "space." The hardware store then changed its policy and ignored the caller's name.
Telephone answerers may be told people love to be addressed by name, and one bank asks my first name at the start. To my objection that we're not personal friends, they say, "but then I don't know what to call you." I reply, "then ask."
Google's attempt to read your mind from your search inquiry bothers me. This is an instance of their getting too close, standing, as it were, an inch away from your nose.
The Google founder seems to be a nice guy who is totally oblivious to the implications of his invading our space. And he looks forward to integrating your cell phone and all other electronic input into one portrait.
If this is representative of their thinking, they may do a lot of damage to your privacy without intending to.
Don't forget to log out of Google as soon as you're through your search.
I don't use Chrome because there is no way you can contact a human being for a question their Help tab does not address. Only when I uninstalled it did a field open up asking why. That should tell you a lot.

It's interesting that this article is far more nuanced than the one on Google's Privacy Policy; it cites a series of ways in which Google's preoccupation with revenue, and ruling the world, causes it to hypocritically rationalize routine violations of copyright and privacy which it has assiduously fought when directed at their own content. However, you don't point out that this is exactly what they've been doing to their users all along, they're just extending it. The Knowledge Graph maps "relationships" of people as well as information, relationships between you and your friends, the articles you comment on, sites you visit, how long you stay on certain pages, objects you investigate, things you buy, who you send emails to, and even references in those emails which might give them a clue to what ads to show you - they just don't display the results.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I consider that a gross violation of privacy. What if you had to wear a GPS tracker, so somebody knew exactly where you went, how fast you drove, every store you visited, what aisles you went to, what items you stopped to view, every address you went to and how long you stayed? If the government does that, we call it surveillance, and the courts have ruled they need a warrant to even put a GPS tracker on your car, and only certain convicted individuals have to wear a personal tracker; if an individual does that, we call it stalking, and there are legal penalties; if a corporation does that so that they can make more money, we call it business as usual? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

The Europeans understand this much better than Americans do - but of course our government has swung almost completely to the side of the corporations over the last few decades; we're no longer "citizens" to them, we're "consumers", who provide 70% of GDP by buying things. And they seem to think that it's fine to inconvenience thousands of people if you can make money at it - e.g flying slow noisy airplanes towing banner ads low over residential areas when there are ball games at Fenway Park. You seem to be playing along with them, by maintaining that gathering and collating highly personal information is harmless, but there's a problem if an extension of that project violate contracts with other businesses and organizations. Say what?

The idea of tying all the world's knowledge together, and making lookups easier, is laudable; in one sense, that's what Wikipedia is about. I don't think, however, that it should be done by a company which is building on the most extensive private database of personal information in existence (although Homeland Security is doing their best to catch up). I'd feel much less queasy about this if it were a consortium-funded project undertaken by Wolfram Alpha or Encyclopedia Britannica, and/or a network of universities, with Google support.