Talk:Knol/Archive 1

message: Does anyone know about the relationship between Udi Manber and Rachel Manber, author of the sample page? Are they a married couple? -- Taku (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachel Manber 

message: Is anybody already working on a bot that will upload all Wikipedia articles into Knol? AxelBoldt (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way too early to think of this kind stuff, I think. -- Taku (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And get money for all 2M articles? lol --Emijrp (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i do not think the license under which google will host this tuff will allow this. the whole point is that the matterial will be protected so people will be able to access this stuff only on google and hence use google ads.--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eww. Don't start. Can you imagine the multitude of GFDL violations of Wikipedia on Knol we'll get anyway? Nihiltres{t.l} 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the same as from any other website around. I don't get why everybody's so against this. All it is is another place to have information, the only thing you have here is authenticated authors (probably authenticated through their adds account as they need to provide this to get money from adds). If it'll be well used then great, it'll be easier to find information for Wikipedia, and if it won't be well used, then, well, who cares? No skin off our backs. I highly doubt Google will risk their reputation to give knols unjust high ranking. Search is their cash cow and they know it. Just like Blogger pages or Youtube (both also owned by Google) don't get unjustly high ranking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.82.69 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an answer of why you would be against knols. If I understand you correctly (and I'm not really sure I do completely) This is an answer of why you would be against searching for information with the Google search engine at all, as any web page gets higher ranking via mass confusion and mob rule. I believe that the more information on the web the better. I do not think that Wikipedia should be the only portal for human knowledge available. I think there is room for a portal in which experts can express their opinion, and I really do not see why the hostility for such a thing besides "fear of the new and different" and the belief that "anything Google does is bad for everyone". All they are doing here is trying to seduce experts to dump their knowledge to the web.212.179.82.69 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Attention_economy Igor Berger (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is as much an answer to what I said as Paranoia is an answer to you.212.179.82.69 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot? 

message: I think the comparison to wikipedia are excessive.  Knol is for How To's which violate wikipedia's NOR.  It's obvious that Knol will become a source forge for How To's.  JeffBurdges (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah i def agree, Knol will not compete directly with Wikipedia.  i do think few people will bother writing articles like we have here.  it will feel like a copy of wikipedia unless someone wants to give a specific point of view, but that is mostly confined to political topics and few history topics.  i think knol will def be more like a "how to" site.
--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Knol, as shown in the Insomnia article, will be a legit source, in that it is reliable. Having a Stanford scientist write the article makes that article a reliable source, unlike Wikipedia, which is not. Another advantage is that it will have more depth, I suppose. Wikipedia will have the breadth advantage. Tparameter (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is not yet known if credentials like that will be required to write articles or that articles will be required to be that comprehensive. Until they announce more details, its all speculation based on the first announcement. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To's 

message: references in wikipedia tend to link to other wikiwords, as every article of KNOL will be indexed it is more likely that links are used to do SEO (google rank) and promote the author (googling yourself). google is content neutral, it just follows the links. wikipedia is human driven. both concepts will clash and KNOL will become likely the next spam graveyard after google base. --85.178.41.183 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEO, Linkfarming, Mahalo 

message: This looks to me like the most definitive source so far from Google itself about the project. That page indicates to me that the initial 'k' should be lower case - ie knol, not Knol, and hence we should use the  template.--86.146.241.108 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects, I'll go ahead and change it throughout to knol.--86.146.241.108 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, careful inspection of that example shows that it is capitalized when at the begining of a sentence and lowercase within a sentence (the title is lowercase as this is the standard throughout code.google.com, for example look at the YouPlayer entry). So they treat it like a regular noun. I'll fix appropriately. DuckeJ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for your information, this doesn't seem to be official -- somebody called Ayyub created a project on Google Code and named it as "knol". I've brought this to Google's attention -- it will be removed shortly, or replaced by Google's official page. utcursch | talk 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the name of the project? 

message: "The site has been seen by many as Google's attempt to compete with Wikipedia"  :) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So true 

message: Does anybody understand what he's trying to say? I don't understand what new conflict of interest he is raising. What "social goals" is he referring to? It would be better to explain the concern instead of just placing it as-is in the article. The second part of the quote sounds like the previous problem that was raised, where the variety of content that will be available to people will be influenced by commercial interests. This is also the main point raised in the original article the quote was taken from, and there too they only have the quote as-is, unexplained. What I'm asking is this: What more does this quote add to the article?DuckeJ (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I moved the quotation to the paragraph above, which was also about conflict of interest. I think the issue here is Google's stated goal of "do no evil", and its possible negative impact on Wikipedia and other content providers. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jeff Chester Quote 

message: I keep on googleing it and not a link to Knol. I just wanted to check it out. How can we get to it. Is it knol.com or something? --HPJoker (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we get to Knol? 

message: Please try to refrain from further using this forum as a soapbox for conspiracy theories of how Google wishes to social engineer the internet, destroy Wikipedia, is evil and disruptive to mankind and so forth. True or not, a terrible danger to us all or not, this is not the proper forum to publicize your views. DuckeJ (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  knol conspiracy theories 

message: I was very much wondering why is the knol article still existing in wikipedia. Personally I look upto wikipedia as a place where knowledge is more important than commercial intentions. Hence since knol is using wikipedia as a platform for its advertisement I would rather not like to view knol article inside wikipedia. Please comment about your suggestions on this. 
Vikasap
:Well Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  If Knol meets the notability criteria then it should have an article.  It clearly meets notability criteria.  Wikipedia will be far more hurt by censoring rivals than by linking to them.  JASpencer (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vikasap, I agre with your resoning, Google should go some place else promoting and advertising their product Knol. Why we are ven talking about it. This is WikiPedia we do not have to defend ourself...Knol works does not work, who cares! If any WikiPedian want to go edit there, Good Bye! Igor Berger (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pfft.  Wikipedia relies on Googles search. --125.60.248.139 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should wikipedia allow knol to thrive inside it ? 

message: This article is quickly slipping away from a neutral point of view due to undue weight of negative Knol reviews. Currently, almost half the article consisits of quotes presented in whole from people with negative forcasts concerning Knol. I don't understand the relevance of any bloggers two cent forcast on what will be the outcome for the web in general as a result of the Google Knol launch. There are two separate paragraphs with quotes from Jimmy Wales put in full: "They are not going to allow collaboration and aren’t going to go for Wikipedia’s neutral style" and "You may see an awful lot of articles about Viagra". 
Do these two quotes add any value to the article, helping someone better understand what a Knol is? Or are they only there to reflect the authors PoV?DuckeJ (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The last quote is juvenile and adds absolutely nothing to the entry.128.2.161.180 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As the founder of what most people are considering Knol's biggest competition, how is his opinion not relevant? It was not being presented as fact but as a quote of a person's opinion so WP:NOR does not apply. Mr.Z-man 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV 

message: Some questions, which are nice to be answered in article:
What is the difference between knol article and blog entry ?
Are there any special means for linking knols which are better than html-linking blog entries ?
Is it possible to discuss knol article ?
What is the status of the project - is it dead, where one can read roadmap and list of expected features?  
Arsen.Shnurkov (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: questions