Slashdot Mirror


Google's "Knol" Reinvents Wikipedia

teslatug writes "Google appears to be reinventing Wikipedia with their new product that they call knol (not yet publicly available). In an attempt to gather human knowledge, Google will accept articles from users who will be credited with the article by name. If they want, they can allow ads to appear alongside the content and they will be getting a share of the profits if that's the case. Other users will be allowed to rate, edit or comment on the articles. The content does not have to be exclusive to Google but no mention is made on any license for it. Is this a better model for free information gathering?"

8 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Guess the language! by bconway · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google'a Knol

    Klingon?

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  2. Trying to promote a new catchword too. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google is trying to promote knol as a new buzzword meaning "a unit of knowledge."

    I wonder how many knol's Slashdot is worth?

    1. Re:Trying to promote a new catchword too. by nlitement · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it seriously so hard to form "plural's" in English? :(

  3. This is so unlike Wikipedia by Loibisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All they're basically proposing is that you write an article as best as you can and they host it, giving you a tiny share of the revenue it generates. So instead of watching edit wars and being able to check out multiple opinions you now have to take the whole article as it is. There might even be small errors in there that would otherwise have been fixed by peers.

    I understand that knowing the author could give more weight to the information of an article...I just don't understand how this is anything worth talking about or worth comparing to wikipedia.

  4. might be by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikipedia is getting something of a reputation for being elitist and at times discriminatory without justification. Whatever the truth, when such labels are applied people are usually ripe for alternatives.

    Google did this once before, in spite of what they say to the contrary, against Sourceforge. In that case, good though they are, Sourceforge was becoming quite unreliable for non paying users, and their service, while including many wonderful options, was unweildy to use.

    Along came google with google code. It's a simpler service, nowhere near the features of sourceforge, but for sheer simplicity it's a joy. I wasn't alone in moving there.

    Will I use knol? Well it might be just the place to place some articles derived from papers I've published, we shall see.

  5. This could end badly... by TheLuggage2008 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia is having enough trouble trying to stop people from editing content to cast the groups they represent in a better light; Giving them the opportunity to create their own misleading articles that can make them money through ads as well doesn't sound promising. Add to that the fact that people without agendas who share information on wikis now surely must be doing it for the love of sharing information or the love of the topic its self; ad money will only end up encouraging less passionate people to post whatever pops into their heads just to get a page running for the ad support.

  6. Re:"Free Information Gathering?" by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > You see that thing on the right of the screenshot? That's an "Ads by Google" box. When I view a page and that
    > guy is there, it isn't free anymore.

    No, it's free, because you're not paying for it. Free newspapers are free, regardless of the fact that advertisers paid to have their ads inserted. Free parties are free regardless of the fact that someone paid for the records/PA etc. Your `ad based` distinction is meaningless. `The whole world` - that is, other people - try to profit from free stuff too. Is something `free` by your definition (god knows there are enough definitions of Free to keep us going for a while now) only involve benefactors with deep pockets funding a project indefinitely, at a loss? How many of those exist? Even there, you'd hardly be exempt from copyright infringement etc - it just wouldn't happen in an attempt to make a profit, but for kicks. There are no adds on Wikipedia but I've seen plenty of abuse there - lies, fake deaths, stupid pictures inserted into maths pages etc.

    Hopefully information from Wikipedia will end up on Know as well as in many other places, so that different approaches to protecting facts and filtering nonsense can be tried.

  7. Re:"Free Information Gathering?" -Yes by imstanny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the purpose of your diatribe? It's free for the user. If I need information, I can gather it for free: Whether or not there's ads on the page does not limit the amount of data I can gather, nor does it decrease the amount of money in my wallet.