Talk:Knol/Archive 2

message: Does anyone know what the url for the site is? or will be? ThreeOneFive (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unknown at this stage. There is speculation that it will be knol.google.com as per other Google properties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's eve possible that there won't be any url, because knol may not turn out to be a website at all. This has been discussed above. -- Taku (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture sure makes it seem like a website.  In any case, Google owns both googleknol.com and googlepedia.com ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote Udi Manbers Googleblog entry: "At the heart, a knol is just a web page... It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page."DuckeJ (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL 

message: Given that it's a new term, the entry ought to indicate how to pronounce 'knol'. Is it like 'null' or 'gnoll' or somewhere in between? Any sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It rhymes with 'call,' according to NPR -- I believe it was mentioned on All Things Considered, but it's not showing on NPR.org's search engine. Konamaiki (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... it's pronounced the same way as the first part of the word "knowledge". Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I have added a parenthetical note in the introductory paragraph.Dbarefoot (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my accent, at least, "call" sounds noticeably different to the "knowl" in "knowledge". It's best to avoid analogies and just use IPA for pronounciation, otherwise you mislead people with different accents.—greenrd (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenrd: Go ahead and correct it--I'm not overly familiar with the appropriate citation usage.Dbarefoot (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all speculation. I've seen no mention to pronounciation in our references, and it seems the only official release so far is from the Google blog. There is currently no mention of it in NPR. There's no reason to post speculation, I'm removing it, we can repost once it starts appearing on TV and there is a reference. DuckeJ (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from "knowledge": "Like Wikipedia, articles in knol (the name derives from “knowledge”) will be free to read online." (emphasis mine)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali'i (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, we should have reliable source verification of the pronunciation.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: If Google wants to promote Knol they should have a Knol public discussion forum on Knol or Google domain!
(redacted)
Enough is Enough! (redacted) Igor Berger (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence for these allegations of astroturfing?—greenrd (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you call this?
why does an anonymous user delete controversial talk? Undid revision 180866477 by 67.173.204.223
Konol Talk HistoryIgor Berger (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there is no direct physical evidence to my statement, there is circumctential evedince which is guilt by association, based on rampant vandalism to delete this section of Talk:Knol, which I have started to catalog at WikiProject Spam Vandalism and social engineering of Wikipedia Knol article. Any further attempts to deolete this section will be seen as additional proof of an attempt of social engineering of WikiPedia percation of Knol. WikiPedia is built by consensus not by destruction. Anyone is welcome to join the discussion on this article in a creative contributing matter. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the edits made to this discussion are well documented in the "history" tab. Read the justifications of deleting the text. It is not "social engineering" but actually somewhat justified deletions of material that, strictly by the rules, does not rightfully belong in the talk page. While I don't agree with the anonymous editor and I believe he is stretching the limits of the rules beyond necessary and even sometimes deleting discussions that are not harmful and even some that have to do with the editing of the article, (such as discussions about validity and meaning of some quotes), it is clear that it is not deletions of vandalism or spam. Lets reach an agreement that if someone thinks a certain discussion should not be held in this talk page that he first reply to the discussion explaining himself, and stating that he does not think this is the proper forum for the discussion, let people have a chance to respond and only then delete the discussion. This delete-revert-delete is childish, needlessly aggravating and counter-productive.DuckeJ (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we all need to talk about what we want to do and get a consensus with authoritative editors before an action is taken.Igor Berger (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to the accusations from  Igor Berger (talk), I have posted on his talk page.71.226.158.141 (talk)T.L.Sawyer  —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the matter User_talk:Igorberger#71.226.158.141 Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please learn what is Social engineering and how destructive it is to WikiPedia, to Knowledge, and Society as a whole. Igor Berger (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To the administrator supervising this talk, if you feel that the comments that I have started here are unproductive for the article, please delete them. I withdraw myself from further participating in Talk:Knol because in my opinion this talk is not relevent to WikiPedia and should not even take place on WikiPedia but on Knol domain. This is WikiPedia and there is Knol lets not mix the two up. Igor Berger (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPedia is not Knol 

message: I removed this section:
Others predict Knol will become a hangout for Internet Marketers, rivaled only by Squidoo. Much like creating a Squidoo lens, entrepreneurs can create “knols” to establish themselves as an authority on their given subject, creating a cashflow by allowing Google to monetize the page.
The section quoted http://www.terryheath.com/11/google-knol-wikipedia-with-a-face/ 
Firstly, "others" is a weasel word. Secondly, this is the opinion of a single blogger, Terry Heath, who does not seem to be of any important calliber, unlike the others quoted for their opinion in this article. Lastly, this is a word-for word copy-paste of his blog, which is a copyright violation. DuckeJ (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. -- 125.60.248.139 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Terry Heath Quote 

message: Does anybody know if Knol will follow Wikipedia's beliefs on Wikipedia:NotabilityNotability, where an article must be considered relevant to the general population in order for it to stay open? --Is this fact...? 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance?