-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

As will surprise none of the Knol nay-sayers here (in which number I believe I can count myself), Knol hasn't done too great.

'Google Knol six months later: Wikipedia need not worry' http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-google-knol-six-months-later-w...

"What happened to Knol? Announced by Google in late 2007 and launched in July 2008, the site was meant to bring more credible (read: not written by anonymous Wikipedians) "knowledge units" to the web, and it would allow the authors to cash in on their work. But it's 2009, and Knol appears to be notable largely for its non-notability...Now the bad news: no one's reading the site, and it's awash in poor content."

"As for the quality of the content, Google's attempt at monetizing (both for itself and for its authors) the Knol entries has had a perverse effect. While it has attracted plenty of detailed commentary from learned professionals, it's drowning in plenty more that is basically spam, plagiarism, or a stub, thrown up in the apparent hope of making some quick cash. (Though because of point number one, that's not happening, either.)"

"Take "Barack Obama," for instance. A search for his name brings up 809 entries; since most Knol users appear to write their own entries rather than add to others (for which no compensation is forthcoming), the proliferation of entries is inevitable. And it's not at all clear that the best ones are rising to the top."

These two points in particular were foreseen by commentators here, IIRC.

On the plus side, it appears Knol has attracted a few experts. The article mentions (derisively) an article on _The Art of War_, http://knol.google.com/k/gary-gagliardi/sun-tzus-the-art-of-war/1xxv8scv3ng5... , but I'm fairly impressed reading through it (it is thorough, well-written, and to my minimal knowledge of the subject, accurate).

- -- gwern