Massimiliano writes:
I still don't understand why we should reject the copyleft philosophy and change to an attribution license. I think that our mission is not only to provide free information and knowledge, but also to be sure that it will be kept free. I don't think that we should change our licensing policies in order to be published on Google Knol: why we should do it? If Knols wants to allow its users to publish Wikipedia-derivative content they should change their terms, IMHO.
FWIW, this is my view as well. I'm disappointed with Knol's licensing options, which strike me as far too conservative.
--Mike
Many of Google's ventures should probably be used as textbook examples of how to make it online. Make a service that is simple, fast, and something people will grow to rely on, then worry about monetising it without offending people. With so many sites having flashing, dancing, "punch-the-monkey" advertising their Adsense program was a welcome relief to so many surfers. Admittedly, I can't remember the last time I clicked on an adsense link, in fact its quite probable that it was one of the tiny percentage that offend me and I wanted to waste the advertiser's money.
Knol isn't a blog, but it certainly isn't an encyclopedia. Virtually every entry I've read has been a single person relating their experience(s) or knowledge in a very informal and - in many cases - folksy manner. Links for further reading or citeable sources are nonexistent; there is no policing of image sourcing to prevent copyright violation, and you're looking at a page that is decorated with advertising.
To perhaps be overly cynical: Wikimedia works to freely share information and knowledge with as many people as possible. Google Knol works to monetise opinions and observations from any sap that can be convinced to contribute.
Knol, the Geocities of the 21st century.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mike Godwin Sent: 30 July 2008 14:29 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Knol: on the bright side of things...
Massimiliano writes:
I still don't understand why we should reject the copyleft philosophy and change to an attribution license. I think that our mission is not only to provide free information and knowledge, but also to be sure that it will be kept free. I don't think that we should change our licensing policies in order to be published on Google Knol: why we should do it? If Knols wants to allow its users to publish Wikipedia-derivative content they should change their terms, IMHO.
FWIW, this is my view as well. I'm disappointed with Knol's licensing options, which strike me as far too conservative.
--Mike
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
[snip] With so many sites having flashing, dancing, "punch-the-monkey" advertising their Adsense program was a welcome relief to so many surfers.
You mean punching the monkey doesn't give you a free iPod? What a ripoff.
-Chad
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
... To perhaps be overly cynical: Wikimedia works to freely share information and knowledge with as many people as possible. Google Knol works to monetise opinions and observations from any sap that can be convinced to contribute.
Knol, the Geocities of the 21st century.
I agree that Knol is currently less well focused and written than Wikipedia is.
But both in response to this and to the Copyleft / BY discussion -
Let me put forth the idea that experimentation in the "freely available information" space is an extremely good thing.
Wikipedia took some time to get where it is today, where we have at least nominally functional content accuracy, anti-vandalism, community functions. These are all still clearly problem points but I think that "it works" is clearly defensible.
We also may not be the ultimate best solution for creating or distributing good freely available information.
A lot of the problems we do have are pretty core issues with how we work and very hard to fix.
The question of whether making money off ads associated with freely available information works for the better of the community at large and content creators/editors is an open question. Wikipedia chose very deliberately not to. Wikia does, but the company makes the money. In Knol's case, writers/editors can make at least some of it. Many of Wikipedia's mirror sites make money similarly to Wikia.
It may well be that there's potentially enough money in some editing/writing that it can attract better writers and editors to help create better, stronger information pages / Knols on popular topics. That would probably benefit everyone.
The copyleft vs BY-like license dispute is also an open question. I don't know of any serious study or historical analysis which has indicated that open content, software, or anything else licensed under GPL or copyleft terms has thrived more or been higher quality than BSD or BY-like licenses. This is a philosophical answer more than a practical one - it's fine to prefer one or the other, and I have no problem with Wikipedia's GFDL / eventually CC-BY-SA-like stance. But other licenses and license philosophies may work just as well, or better, in the long term. There should be more effort put into studying what the licenses' practical effects are. There should also be more openness to other projects doing it differently, so that we have test cases of the different options.
Knol as it stands now is ridiculously primitive in comparison to Wikipedia now. But compared to Wikipedia a month into the project?
I don't know if it will ultimately thrive or wither on the vine. Either way, it's an important experiment in alternate ways to create and distribute information freely. We should be standing up and clapping and wishing it the best. This is not a competition in the "Wikipedia wins Knol loses" sense. We're here to create and distribute free information - everyone wins if someone finds a better way to do that.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org