What is Digg?104 Comments
- infinity777, on 12/15/2007, -4/+51Google is totally trying to replace Wikipedia. That may sound bad, but I personally like the idea of having multiple experts in specific fields taking responsibility for the content of their work and then letting users "digg" up the most informative submissions. It could really eliminate some of the authenticity questions that have been arising from wikipedia's use. However, the question of google having too much control over the wealth of information in the world will start to arise soon...
- phixed, on 12/15/2007, -8/+54It'll be interesting to see how quickly Wikipedia disappears from Google results.
- fuzzmeister, on 12/15/2007, -6/+30It won't. This search shows Google's integrity in these matters:
http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine
In a Google search for "search engine", Google isn't even on the first page.
Without it's reputation for neutrality in rankings, Google would be nothing, so they won't do anything to mess that up. - socialpyramid, on 12/15/2007, -6/+29I read this guy Udi Manber's name as U-de Manbearpig
- rishubhav, on 12/15/2007, -3/+20Not to knock Digg or anything, but doesn't the "mysterious PageRank system" sound a bit like Digg's front page algorithm?
Headline a few years down the line: "Digg launches new bloghosting service"
And guess which blogs hit the front page first..... - PhantomBantam, on 12/15/2007, -0/+16So does the author-oriented approach of Knols mean there could be many entries for one subject? If that's the case, than it seems it is not in direct competition with Wikipedia, which aims for a neutral point of view, and no original research.
It looks more like about.com - thailand1972, on 12/15/2007, -3/+16Why would Google give a ***** about appearing in their own search results regarding the search "search engine"? The searcher is already on Google.
"knol" v Wikipedia is something else though. I can see some hand-editing going on from the Google lab when "knol" results start to appear in Google's search results. - walkar, on 12/15/2007, -1/+12[citation needed]
- kigabit, on 12/15/2007, -1/+12How is Google or anyone going to verify the credentials of these "experts"? That's one question I haven't seen addressed yet. Or is Knol just going to rely on its ranking to sort out those with fake or no authority on a subject?
- Chubbly, on 12/15/2007, -2/+12This doesn't sound like a good idea. If they're trying to compete with Wikipedia, my initial reaction would be to trust Wikipedia more than some article written by someone to earn money. Unfortunately with people, and what Wikipedia negates so well, is that ego's will take over informative articles. Author doesn't like facts on his popular page, BAM, no facts. Life has taught us tabloids sell.
Expect to see thousands of "Boobs" articles, and not many of cool but obscure things about maths or chemistry. - NathanielJ, on 12/15/2007, -0/+9"It looks more like about.com"
Exactly, in the original Google Blog post, they actually said the exact same thing themselves. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, people need to stop freaking out over this. As long as the website is high-quality, who cares? Bring on an internet source that might even be cite-worthy in academic situations. - gopanthers, on 12/15/2007, -0/+9I've made 900 edits in Wikipedia. Some were minor but I've created dozens of well-researched and well cited articles. So if I became a knol and took the expert contributions *I* made to Wikipedia in the past with me to Knol, would I be plagiarizing myself? I've always simply enjoyed contributing knowledge to the world but now it sounds like I'm going to regret having given away the milk without anybody paying for the cow.
- lukas88, on 12/15/2007, -4/+11I can see how both of these sights can be useful in different ways. With knol, the articles are by a restricted number of authors (usually one). The information is going to be more subjective but perhaps from a more reputable source then just some anonymous internet user. They are going to have a much more limited amount of useful content, but the good content will probably be easy to find based on ratings.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not supposed to have original content. This knol site seems to encourage it. If you think about it, people are going to go to each website for different reasons and with different results. I see no real competition here.
Google tends to release quality products and I am looking forward to this one, but there is no way it could touch wikipedia. - lennybird, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7As far as authenticity with wikipedia is concerned, dedicated users are doing a good job. Most major articles have dozens of citations and reference link. Not sure of the legitimacy of the article, but I read somewhere that tests have shown wikipedia to be about 90%+ as accurate as any book encyclopedia.
- rishubhav, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7I know, I'm just pointing out that both are rather mysterious closed-door algorithms that command massive amounts of power in the Internet
- SouthernGeek, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7GOOGLE IS TAKING OVER THE PLANET!!!
- TheMachine1, on 12/15/2007, -2/+8I've been tempted many times in the past to write articles for wikipedia on chemistry but was too lazy. The profit sharing idea that google is suggesting with Knol would be enough to get a few good articles out of me. :)
- thailand1972, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6Why would they do anything that ISN'T based on their potential revenue?
- AndrewWiggin, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6Why does a cooperative non-profit organization need a competitor? I'd rather if everyone worked together, but maybe it's the pro-collectivistic nature in me.
- Dustmuffins, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Wikipedia needs a competitor.
- AndrewWiggin, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Interesting that Wikipedia is the third result... I'd say it was ironic but then I'd be misusing the word like everyone else.
- PhantomBantam, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6Pagerank was around long before digg, and is just how Google determines the order pages appear in a search (in other words what the whole search relies on).
- thailand1972, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Good point. Look at Digg - articles dugg up that prove to be *****. The mob can get it wrong.
- SteveIsTheDude, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7I told you Man Bear Pig was Real!
- PaulOwen, on 12/15/2007, -4/+8Its so disappointing that manishtomar's comment is being dugg down - it shows that there's still incredible naiivety about google as a multinational corporation.
Remember when Google began editing its search results in support of the corrupt and murderous government for Chinese web users? Well, the day that happened, I'm afraid they stopped being nice and started being evil. That mantra of doing no evil? That was a strapline to make shareholders feel good! This latest venture, to divert page views away from a NON PROFIT encyclopedia site like wikipedia to a PROFIT MAKING corporate site is well quite frankly evil.
If Microsoft was starting up now, they would be just like Google. If you believe anything else then you don't deserve to be in gainful employment - you're too wet behind the ears. - multitude, on 12/15/2007, -3/+7Another reason that we should stay away from Google as much as possible -- their drive to co-opt any important social movement is terrifying.
- williamdyer, on 12/15/2007, -3/+7IN many areas Wikipedia is vastly better than any encyclopedia could be. The technology articles are, for the most part, a really good starting point for almost any technology and standard.
But, try criticizing Israel on Wikipedia. Or suggesting that there is a hidden agenda in some key political controversies. You will find that Wikipedia has a ruling clique. - thailand1972, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4You'd probably get punished by Google's duplicate content filter which would greatly lower the rank of your Knol contributions. That's if Google play fair with Wikipedia.
- WikiEasy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5One thing we should have learned from Digg is that "digging" doesn't work. All it does is end up being controlled by the tyranny of the masses. Just look at some of the crappy "news" articles and comments being dugg up here.
A system like Slashdot's is much more useful. It's just too bad Slashdot's UI is so terrible and articles are so few. - Koganei, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Using a user rating system seems like faulty reasoning. Why would a knol rated 5 stars by fifty high school dropouts be more valid than some specialist on the specified field?
How can we understand how important is the person's opinion on this particular knol?
If a knol about 'brain use' indicates that the human brain only uses 10% of his capacity at any time. Many scientists know this to be untrue, but Mr. John Doe thinks that this is true and will therefore rate it up. How can we trust the 'general populace' to tell us what is true and what is not? - taizoshiozaki, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5Google is evil although I also must admit competition is good.
- dn11, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3i'm ALL for competition in this area - especially considering Wikipedias reputation for being a somewhat closed community for contributors - and it would be great to have more than one comprehensive encyclopedia to refer to, but the idea that Google might be promoting it's own service above the rest of the internet seems to conflict with what should be Google's prime directive. Excellent search is what made Google - if they start introducing bias into the system to serve their own goals it isn't a good trend IMO.
- inactive, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Except that like our current media providers on TV, a paid editor would be more likely to write from a point of view that he/she is told to in order to make money. They may start off acting unbiased, but over time Google will weasel its way into controlling content. Cue 1984 nightmares.
- HonoredMule, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3I can easily see this hurting Wikipedia without being any good itself.
Wikipedia loses the input of trained experts and professionals, while Knol fails to achieve rigorous peer review and continued scrutiny, and instead becomes a soap box furthering the personal motives of "professionals," so labeled by courtesy of diploma or social status only.
Wikipedia's strength is in being a meritocracy that respects demonstrated understanding and NOT degrees, celebrity, or position. - Modestexcuse, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Here is a blog from Google:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging ... - inactive, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4No it wasn't.
- AndrewWiggin, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3What's to stop me from creating a perfectly written article on any topic copied and pasted from Wikipedia? Do they cross reference them all with Wikipedia and other similar sites?
I'm undecided what I think of this at some point. - Smalldude76, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Somewhat, though in the official google blog post they say references will be made. It's like it's a wikipedia for experts to publish their work and people can criticise it and help build upon it. I can't wait to see how this turns out.
- inactive, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3"Well, Google’s kicked that effort up a notch with news that it will now encourage the “average joe” to create content pages, saturate the web with them, and help Google earn some extra ad revenue along the way."
Ahem, contrary to the personal opinions of various Digg users, Knol will not be more reliable that Wikipedia. Google intends to use "average joes," not experts.
Also, you get paid by the advertisers:
"Authors of knols won’t be forced to show Google ads, but if they do they will receive a “substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads.”"
Cited: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/12/google-run ... - inactive, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4How does it look "likely to get it" other than arstechnica's fanboyism?
- rolosworld, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3I think what will arise more will be other truly expert copycats of a lot of other "experts", just to get a couple of $$. Real experts will surely share their knowledge, but the copycats will monetize more without effort. This surely will have more trusty content but I think I will like more wikipedia's 1 topic with all the info and everyone "fixing" each other. Lets wait and see what happens.
- heartsblood, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4If their drive is to create a democratic display of information than more power to them we can never have too much information. However, if their goal is to create a system that displays information based on it's potential revenue then I hope they fail miserably.
- widgetmaker, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2It'll be interesting to see if Universities and colleges allow people to reference Knol articles or if they'll stick to the same policy as wikipedia and not allowing people to, (I don't under stand this, if the article is well cited on wikipedia it is often alot higher quality than some text books on subjects)
- inactive, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2The Colbert Report will make Colbert the expert on elephants, that's for sure!
- TimRogers, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Someone needs poetry lessons.
- shanmac, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Google's 'Knols' sounds like they will definitely gain traction rapidly. This is a really innovative business solution by Google.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2I'm concerned as to how the rating system works. Sure you have experts writing really good articles, but what about hot political issues. How will they encourage a neutral point of view and prevent a tyrrany of the majority?
- ultraJesus, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Good for Google, trying to run a non profit organization out of business.
- fuzzmeister, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3I was just using it as a demonstration of a place where they don't manipulate their results. And I don't see any of that "hand-editing" happening at all. As I said before, if Google was ever caught doing something like that, their credibility would be instantly ruined, and their business could quickly evaporate. They would never risk that.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is