What is Digg?141 Comments
- rmd34, on 01/17/2008, -1/+111For more info on Knol, check out the wikipedia article;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol
Seriously, I have some grave misgivings about this *authoritarian* approach to information. I'm certain many will question the type of political articles, company product articles, etc... that will be the result of this. Then there is the question of money making schemes which already includes Google ad-revenue but could very well include payoffs and bribes depending on the article and it's influence.
It is clear that Google (and other search providers) needs to answer the wikipedia question and the impact it has had on the internet. I am sure that this current model is *not* the answer. - bathenry07, on 01/17/2008, -3/+73Great news, wikipedia isn`t bad at all but we always needs an alternative
- henrikakselsen, on 01/17/2008, -1/+50Worst name for a web service since "Orkut".
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -2/+28with Adwords!
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+24and google's bid to rule the world continues!
- elnerdo, on 01/17/2008, -1/+21Most wikipedia articles ARE authored by someone who is very knowledgeable on the subject.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+16Grassy knol
- elmetald00d, on 01/17/2008, -0/+14you're a misinformed IDIOT.
go edit something right now and make up some fact and tell me if it's still up in 30 minutes. THEN talk. - Sairgem, on 01/17/2008, -2/+14Answer me this. How IS Google a monopoly?
- davmed, on 01/17/2008, -2/+14good news, more media = more information
- WWWoody, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9Ah, google takes something else over. And (in all likelihood) makes it better.
Wikipedia is awesome, don't get my wrong, but google always seems to go above and beyond with what they do. - truspect0r, on 01/17/2008, -6/+15Leave wiki alone google.
- latrosicarius, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9exactly.
- RocketGib, on 01/17/2008, -2/+10Wouldn't it be easier for Google just to BUY Wikipedia?
- xxxana, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Couldn't agree more
In Dutch, this is a "knol": http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Belgisch_t ...
google will be the laughing stock of all Dutchspeaking people...
oh and about Orkut: In Dutch "kut" = ***** - fakekevinrose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7i cant see this ever eclipsing wikipedia, sorry google
- hmunkey, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6I hope we can use Knol in our papers as a credible source.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+7On the other hand, it'll also be nice to have an article authored by someone who is very knowledgeable on the subject. I don't want it to replace Wiki, but it could be useful
- drummer1189, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5so the reason this project doesnt work is because their name doesnt work as a verb
- benbos, on 01/17/2008, -4/+9It seems to me that instead of making a version of wikipedia, Google's making a version of about.com.
- Riemannian, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5The real reason Google is creating this is because Wikipedia is such a resource and has such a high PageRank for virtually any search. They want to make money off Wikipedia by running AdSense on it but the community won't allow them to do so. So they wanted to make an Internet property that could compete with Wikipedia and make them the money they wish they could make on that site.
- thtroyer, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5There's a great wealth of information there for the casual learner and researcher.
Sure, for research papers, go for the scholarly articles. If kids don't "get it", start docking their grade (you know, for not following directions, etc). Does wiki really need to be banned?
For casual reading/personal research, I'd much rather be reading wiki. - jjb123, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5False, there are a lot of professionals and hobbyists who are highly educated in a certain topic who contribute and maintain articles. Also, all of the sources are displayed so you can look at those if it will make you feel better.
- qmeister, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5I don't understand all the google hating. The do a great deal of stuff that we can use for free. Seems like a win for everyone. The problem will arise when Google decides to eliminate Wikipedia from their search results...
- winmywii, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4"The majority of articles are open to the entire public to immediately modify as they wish. " - That's pretty much the whole point.
It's not a bad place to start at. I wouldn't totally rely on wikipedia though. I usually try to chec out the pages that are listed as sources for more credible info. If you are going to use wikipedia cite the original source and not wiki, teacher seem to have a general bias against using wiki as a source for anything. - pseudononymist, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5No worries, Google's Final Solution will be to calculate 42.
- lOvOl, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4All your data are belong to us - Google
- litebulb1, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6another step in googles plan to take over the internet, then the world
- amoo3, on 01/17/2008, -3/+7It'll have ads. That makes it two steps beneath Wiki in my books. Even with Adblock
- Atomic1fire, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4and this is any difference from googles other services that use advertising (search) how
- smek2, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Don't be naive. There won't be "more information", just more places where you'll find the same information. Just because somebody writes Naruto related articles elsewhere, doesn't mean we get any new information.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Anyone know what license the articles will be under, will they be copyrighted by Google or CreativeCommons/GPL? That main advantage to Wikipedia is that the knowledge isn't owned by anyone, it can be downloaded, stuck on a DVD and shipped to 3rd world countries without internet access, I doubt Google will be so open. If the Wikimedia foundation turns evil (and there are quite a few examples of tyrannical admins appearing recently) someone can grab the database and make a new site, with blackjack and hookers.
This isn't the first attempt at having authorized articles either there is the http://en.citizendium.org/ for instance which has been around for a while without much talk, but that is at least still open like Wikipeida.
There was also the life encyclopedia that was talked about intending to categorize every species known about with articles, photos etc, like wikispecies but more web2.0ish and with actual content rather than just a bunch of random Latin words that seems to make up wikispecies with the occasionaly photo of a animal, but once again that seemed commercial. I'm not going to wast effort on making some people money by writing articles for them or uploading pictures of my cat/dog/lizard, but I would be willing to do the same in the interest of increasing human knowledge.
Then again if these companies are paying people to write the articles then they own the content, but I get the felling that 1000 people with various degrees of knowledge can write an article better than 1 expert, especially given that out of those 1000 some of them are likely to be experts, and many others are likely to be rewriting information that experts have written, keeping the original content without the copyright, some will just be correcting formatting, meeting styles guidelines, grammar and spelling and some will be vandalizing the article which will be undone by everyone else. - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Google's ENTIRE business plan is based on advertisements!
- huggybarrel, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3I was thinking the same thing.
- peaceninja, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3leave google alone, its a HUMAN BEING!
- WorldGroove, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3But Google is saying that only those authors can edit it. Not so sure about the idea that only people Google deems worthy can post/edit data on the site. The article did say they plan to open it to the public at some point, so ....we'll see. I also kinda don't want to see Wiki "defeated", even by Google. =^(
- amoo3, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3I wonder if schools would allow Knol to be cited as a source for work. Really, I think the neutrality of Wiki makes it an inherently better site to get info off of, but if Knol is a "credible source of information" then it'll do very well.
- harrisbradley, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6it'll be nice when they incorporate the results into their main search
- xtc46, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4a monopoly is when one company controls all of a specific field. So if there was only one organization controlling oil sales...that would be a monopoly (hello OPEC). Google just has ther hands in everything, but does not monopolize any single things. Google Docs has staroffice/openoffice etc. Knols has wikipedia, gmail has hotmail/yahoo mail/etc, google maps/earth as windows live maps, mapquest, google checkout has paypal, and the list goes on.
- jtrost, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure that this will necessarily be competition for Wikipedia. Google is creating an anti-Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open source and open collaboration, whereas Knol is proprietary and forces authors to compete with each other rather than work with each other.
The whole philosophy of this project seems to be a step in the opposite direction of what we're use to seeing. I'll hesitate to call it the "wrong" direction, but I think that there will be a lot of problems making this project into a Wikipedia killer. - peregrine, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Wiki is going nowhere. This Knol project comes after Wikipedia did not use google search for searches. And after they wouldn't put Google adds on the site. This is all hersay and guesses.
But the point is valid. Wiki drives traffic, Google wants a piece of it. Even if it means going out of their way and reinventing the wheel. Also saying it has authoritarians working on it means people can trust it. Also whoever said there would be only one author? They could have 5 10 20 100 authors to a topic. But those people are then held responsible and checked out for credibility.
Can you see how this will be okay? Wikipedia has its place and will never go away, but clearly schools hate wikipedia, and their needs to be something that tricks the schools into using it.
The people who like mobb rule(which isnt a bad thing) will use wikipedia, the ones who like structure and guidelines will use Google knoll. - gameshints, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Sounds more like an answer to About.com than Wikipedia
- muka3d, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have one massive and central database for an encyclopedia (aka Wikipedia) instead of trying to divide it? I'm sure most of the information will be just copied from one to the other (provided that Knol grows large enough), or Knol will be completely neglected.
Team effort (Wikipedia + Google) would be more beneficial for all than 2 or more separates. - Atomic1fire, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3I dont think you can "buy" wikipedia
sure you could buy the website... convert all the accounts to google compatible ones and make every gmail user a source
but the content that was there before will just be moved to another better site and we will have a better answer to googlepedia
I dont like the idea of anyone owning wikipedia
its the mob rule that works to keep it informitive and the mob rule that corrects itself when its not - smek2, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Yes, an advertising fund alternative to an ad-free Encyclopedia. Exactly what the world needs.
- Chirp08, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5exactly, my first thought was "I'll take my information without your advertising please"
seriously, thats like advertising ***** in a library, wtf is wrong with you google. - salmonmoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Yes, but most academic institutions won't allow Wiki to be cited because anyone can edit it.
Knoll is firmly pitched at being a citeable Wikipedia. Still, articles will be submittable by anyone, but rather than blending into a single article, there will be a series of articles, all attributable to their authors. - socomoddjob, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Anyone got a invite for this?
- sevenalive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I dont even remember the last time i went there.
- rogerbly, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3It's understandably difficult for Google to ignore the possible ad revenue from a top 5 website like Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is quickly replacing Google as the place we search for info first. Billions of $ are at stake. Wikipedia could make several hundred million dollars in ad revenue if they used adwords, yet they are popular because they don't.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is