Yes, epic lulz @ teh epic fail.
Who could really tell this early in Knol's life, though? I'd say they are heading for Failville, but it might evolve into something worthwhile.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google launches "Knol", Wikipedia competitor/destroyer
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, epic lulz @ teh epic fail.
Who could really tell this early in Knol's life, though? I'd say they are heading for Failville, but it might evolve into something worthwhile.
It's also its biggest downfall. I run a website that's quite well known in the space community as a place where amateurs go to produce images based on data from unmanned spacecraft around the solar system. Someone once asked if the forum should have its own wiki entry to explain it's origin, purpose and so on. I said that it wasn't up to me, but if someone wanted to do it, I'd be happy to give them all the info.
So, someone did. Then someone who doesn't like me because they got kicked out of the forum for repeated rule breaking decided that it shouldn't have a wiki entry, so they got it deleted. The motives for making the entry ( so people who see the site, which is referenced quite a lot in other wiki entires, can find out it's origin etc ) were sound and honest and well thought. But some idiot with a grudge countered that and poof - it was gone. Now, that put me off Wiki a bit - the fact that one person could just do that. It was a bit pathetic really.
Wiki is full of stories like that - petty grudge matches batted out with chunks of reference material. It's pathetic. Intentionally screwing around with the entry of a person, just to have fun. It renders much of it less a reference tool, and more a playground for intellectual egos.
I consider Wiki more of a tool for finding references, rather than a reference tool. It's a million miles from perfect - and I'm all for someone else having a go and getting it right.
Doug
According to Google, your need the original author's permission to edit a page. So, what's stopping me from writing a page of absolute crap, and preventing others from editing it?
That's exactly why wikipedia works: anyone can make an edit. Just as easily as one can spread false information, someone else can make corrections, and more often than not that's exactly how it works.
That's exactly why wikipedia works: anyone can make an edit. Just as easily as one can spread false information, someone else can make corrections, and more often than not that's exactly how it works.
I just typed "Star Trek" into Knol, and Wikipedia. They are pretty much identical word for word. Seems like this is going to be an issue.
Just like I can't see Cuil overtake Google, I can't see Google overtaking Wikipedia.
The name sucks, but Knol itself looks cool.
I stopped liking Wikipedia when articles I made where removed because its "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance", so apparently they can choose what information is good enough to be in the internet, then!
I stopped liking Wikipedia when articles I made where removed because its "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance", so apparently they can choose what information is good enough to be in the internet, then!
Doesn't Gmail still have the beta logo underneath it on some of its pages?
I think this could grow into something great as long as it doesn't turn into the wikipedia playground as someone put it above...
Google's done a Microsoft!
(ie. tried to get market dominance in a market that already has a well established leader - like Youtube was compared to Google Video)
If Google really wanted to do something useful, they should have donated that money to Wikipedia and tried to create a partnership with them.
However, Knol sounds like it will be good for communities and groups that aren't worthy of recognition on Wikipedia, no? (ie. Wiki entries about online forums)
(ie. tried to get market dominance in a market that already has a well established leader - like Youtube was compared to Google Video)
If Google really wanted to do something useful, they should have donated that money to Wikipedia and tried to create a partnership with them.
However, Knol sounds like it will be good for communities and groups that aren't worthy of recognition on Wikipedia, no? (ie. Wiki entries about online forums)
Maybe they will do the same as with the YouTube/Google Video situation and buy the competitor out... Pulling yet another Microsoft!
A while ago I fixed a dozen or so typing errors in an otherwise excellent article I had looked up (looked like someone had taken a good printed article and typed it in rather carelessly). When I looked at the edit history, about half the entries were some idiot replacing whole paragraphs with clever, witty words like "arse", "****", "soandso is gay" and so on, followed by another edit restoring the original.
At my school, it is impossible to edit Wikipedia pages without using a proxy as so many idiots at my school have done stuff like this they blocked the school's IP!
The wiki is a fundamentally flawed concept so it's interesting to see Google attempt to recreate it with more conventional controls on content. But at the same time it seems like this is yet another Google project that will be taken just so far before Google loses interest and moves onto another thing.
Agreed. The Apple articles on both are literally identical: Knol even has the icons under the images, the timeline (which ironically links to /wiki
) etc.