Knol is Google's newest launch. It's a site where authors can write articles on any topics they like. "Knol," if you were wondering, is a neologism meaning "a unit of knowledge."

ProBlogger wondered whether Knol will be a Wikipedia-killer. I love Darren's ministry very helpful site, but I have to say that if he is even asking that question, then he does not know very much about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia may seem both wide and deep (with almost 2.5 million articles in the English version, more than twice as many as when I first started as an editor), but casual readers may not realize how much isn't there. The Wikipedia community loudly declares that it is not many things, among them "a publisher of original thought" nor a "manual, guidebook, or textbook." And while anybody is free to add to Wikipedia, they are not free to add anything they like to Wikipedia.

At least several hundred entire articles are deleted every day. Over 3000 pages were deleted in the last 24 hours (including articles, images, user pages, and all other types of pages). That's not counting content edited out of existing articles, which is immeasurable (literally — there's no way to tell from the logs).

I imagine that little of what will likely be found in the Knols will overlap with Wikipedia's scope. And virtually none of it will carry authority remotely like Wikipedia's. Since anybody with an Internet connection can change Wikipedia instantaneously, one might think Wikipedia would not have much authority, but the net energy put into keeping Wikipedia sound is far greater than the net energy put into Wikipedia misinformation and disinformation. And that is why so many people trust Wikipedia. (More than they really should; even Wikipedia rejects its own self as an adequately reliable source for Wikipedia.)

Knols may give About.com a run for its money, and may nudge a few Wikipedia articles around in the Google rankings, but Wikipedia is a behemoth that won't feel much from the little flies that are Knols.

In my post "Is Rent-To-Own a good idea?" I mentioned some terms that are red flags for a rip-off. Here is a collection of them. Use of these terms does not necessarily signify a bad deal, but it is a sign for the buyer to be especially aware. Look out for any "deal" that mentions the following:

• Buy now, pay later
• No money down
• Insider secrets
• "They" don't want you to know
• You'd be crazy not to
• Extended warranty
• Act fast
• Important information — do no discard
  

The August 2008 issue of Reader's Digest features an article called "7 Rip-Off Tip Offs." One of the rip-offs listed? Rent-to-own merchandise.

The advantage to rent-to-own merchandise

When you rent furniture or appliances, you can have the item immediately. You don't need to have the money available to purchase it outright — and you don't go into debt. You get instant gratification for a low price and no obligation.

The rent-to-own disadvantage

The savvy reader will notice the short length the paragraph above. I can only think of that one advantage: easy, instant gratification. And there is a very ugly disadvantage: You pay a very, very high price for the merchandise. Reader's Digest calculated the equivalent APR (annual percentage rate) of most rent-to-own items as between 75% and 350%. (And I thought 20% credit card rates were high!) At the end of that time, your very expensive sofa is out of style and your pricey flat-screen TV is obsolete. Since you were renting, you could have exchanged them periodically for newer models... but then you would have lost all the money you "invested."

It can make sense in certain situations to rent merchandise. That's just "rent," without the "...to own" part. Take a hint from the fact that Rent-A-Center and similar operations locate their retail outlets mainly in poorer neighborhoods.

Rip-off tip off words

Take a look again at the short "advantage" paragraph above. It contains red flag words: "no obligation" and "instant gratification." These terms are signals that the subject being discussed is a bad idea, financially speaking. Another red flag term, which certainly applies to rent-to-own schemes, is "no money down."

Don't borrow money to buy things for your house. But don't jump out of the debt frying pan and into the fire by renting to own!

Maybe you already have a job and would like a little extra cash, or maybe you are unable to take a regular job because of children, school obligations, or disability. There are a lot of alternative opportunities tantalizing people in your situation that promise a few extra dollars.

I have tried several of these, and here is a review of how well they worked for me, and whether I made any money at them.

1. Mystery shopping

Corporations need a way to find out whether their retail outlets are really following company policies, or just talking the talk. Enter the mystery shopper. It sounds sexy and exciting: a sophisticated, professional shopper who is also an undercover agent! You are promised up to $50-$100 for each "shop," and you usually are reimbursed for any merchandise you purchase, which you get to keep.

My experience was that most shops actually paid no more than $10-$15. I was assigned mostly cell phone stores and pet stores; other mystery shoppers I have talked to mostly got chain restaurants like Bennigan's. The rules are very strict as to what time of day you must come and who you can bring with you. If you are a mom, forget about being able to do this with your children in tow. You usually have to memorize a script, and remember a lot of details for your report. Of course, you cannot make any notes, or you will blow your cover, in which case you don't get paid.

The bottom line: The time spent traveling to and from the store, memorizing the script, conducting the shop, and completing the report make this opportunity not worth the trouble for most people.

2. Filling out surveys online

Market research is big business, and to motivate consumers to participate, many companies offer financial compensation. In return for filling out questionnaires, you get cash money.

I signed up with a company that was recommended to me (not one I found through a banner ad on some web site). My experience is that more often than not, I don't qualify for the surveys offered me. When I do, the compensation often works out to a pretty paltry hourly wage. On the other hand, the time I devote to the questionnaires is time I would otherwise most likely waste goofing off online, and it is kind of fun, at least for me. After about three months, I've made around $25.

The bottom line: If you spend a lot of time online anyway and you are not always 100% productive, it may be a nice way to make a few (very few) bucks. Otherwise, it is probably a waste of time.

3. Attending focus groups

Focus groups give market research companies the chance to gauge the reactions of real people to their efforts. You offer your opinions on some sort of presentation or discussion. You are paid on the spot with no deductions taken out, either by check or in cash.

A number of websites offer to hook you up with marketers looking for focus group participants. Individual opportunities can often be found on Craigslist, and once you get on the lists, they often call you when something is available. Participants provide their own transportation to the site. You may, for example, be asked your reaction to commercials that are still in production, or you may participate in a mock jury trial. You may have to agree not to disclose any details of your experience, especially for mock trials.

Sessions are often held during the day on weekdays, which may not be compatible with many schedules. Moms will still have to find child care, and you need transportation. If you can work around these issues, focus groups can be very lucrative, paying $50-$200 or more per session.

The bottom line: Definitely worth it if you can work around the logistics issues. They will never be frequent enough to provide more than pocket money, though.

4. "Work from home" programs.

The ads are everywhere, from banner ads to telephone poles. They promise riches enough to make you quit your day job, and you don't even have to leave your house. All you need is a computer with an Internet connection. It's supposed to be perfect for students and stay-at-home moms.

I learned what these are really about when I clicked a banner ad as a favor to someone, hoping to help that person get some advertising revenue from her site (most ads are pay-per-click). I should have just given her fifty cents and saved myself the aggravation.

These work-from-home schemes aren't exactly scams — that is, they don't lie to you, or take your money and run — but they are hardly what they are cracked up to be. Generally, they want you to set up a website (you have to pay for the domain name and hosting, usually around $100) to market some product. Your income is completely dependent on how many people visit your website, so you have to market it aggressively.

I didn't take any of these people up on the pitch. And yes, if you answer one ad, you will be called by about a dozen different organizations, all operating on the same basic business plan. I can't say whether you can really make worthwhile money on this, but doubt it works out for most people.

The bottom line: Smells very fishy. I would recommend giving "work from home" opportunities a wide berth.

Do you have any experiences with alternative ways to make money? Share them with in a comment!

Here is a list of child advocates and child welfare groups which have officially protested, spoken out against, or otherwise denounced "The Baby Borrowers." This post is updated as necessary.

• The Natural Child has issued an open letter of protest, February 27, 2008.
• Attachment Parenting International has formally issued a strong objection to NBC Studios, June 21, 2008.
• The Texas Association for Infant Mental Health has "released an opinion denouncing" the program, June 26, 2008.
  
• Zero to Three has issued a sharply critical statement, no date.
• The Connecticut State Child Advocate has reportedly protested the show in a letter to NBC, although I was not able to confirm this from their website.
• The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology has issued a call to NBC to pull the program, July 2, 2008.
  

Do you know of any other groups protesting this program? Leave your tip in the comments below or visit my profile for my e-mail address.

A famous American aphorism, variously attributed to Abraham Lincoln, P.T. Barnum, and Bob Dylan, observes:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

With "The Baby Borrowers," NBC has fooled some of the people by gravely asserting, "It's not TV, it's birth control." In promoting this program, NBC weeps crocodile tears over teen pregnancy, and successfully has fooled many, many people, among them Sandy Maple of Parent Dish; a nameless rumor blogger, and even, astonishingly, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (PDF).

Let me be very clear about this. "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy.

This program has teens live together, which is a recipe for teen pregnancy. When young couples live together, we all know they are having sex; let's not beat around the bush. Sex leads to pregnancy. Birth control has never been 100% effective, especially when used by inexperienced, impulsive youths. Therefore, "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy. Q.E.D.

The show does not even focus exclusively on teens having babies. Why on earth would a show about teen pregnancy show how difficult it is to take care of an elderly person? It wouldn't. But it is already established that "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy.

Do not let NBC's marketing fool you. "The Baby Borrowers" is not about helping teens. When someone says "The Baby Borrowers" will help teenagers, they are either lying, or they have been fooled by a liar.