This just in - from official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to- contribute.html
On 14/12/2007, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
This just in - from official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to- contribute.html
http://www.google.com/images/blogs/knol_lg.png shows a CC-by-3.0 tag. That's a BIG WIN for Wikimedia and what we do - making free content *normal and expected*. If they require contributions to be under a proper free content licence, then I'm a BIG FAN of this endeavour. Same reason Citizendium succeeding (assuming they pick a free licence) would be a big win for what we do - it's not competition, it's expanding the pool of unencumbered knowledge.
If Google commit to requiring a proper free licence for all content, I'd strongly recommend we publicly support this endeavour.
- d.
2007/12/14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 14/12/2007, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
This just in - from official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to- contribute.html
http://www.google.com/images/blogs/knol_lg.png shows a CC-by-3.0 tag. That's a BIG WIN for Wikimedia and what we do - making free content *normal and expected*. If they require contributions to be under a proper free content licence, then I'm a BIG FAN of this endeavour. Same reason Citizendium succeeding (assuming they pick a free licence) would be a big win for what we do - it's not competition, it's expanding the pool of unencumbered knowledge.
The strange thing is with possibliity to editing this by many and simultaneusly puting just one name of author. Or the idea is that only one author can edit? If so, there is no reason to have "edit" tab visible by all.. It is not clear to me, what they really want to do.
On Dec 14, 2007 1:38 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
The strange thing is with possibliity to editing this by many and simultaneusly puting just one name of author. Or the idea is that only one author can edit? If so, there is no reason to have "edit" tab visible by all.. It is not clear to me, what they really want to do.
2 years ago, Microsoft introduced the edit button at msn-encarta. "Edit" is their way of saying "you are allowed to submit suggestions how to improve the article and you are free to do that be simply making the suggestion as if this was an edit button".
It would be technically possible (but not entirely logical) to have the main author of an article work as the person acknowledging the proposed edit.
Mathias
2007/12/14, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:38 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
The strange thing is with possibliity to editing this by many and simultaneusly puting just one name of author. Or the idea is that only one author can edit? If so, there is no reason to have "edit" tab visible by all.. It is not clear to me, what they really want to do.
2 years ago, Microsoft introduced the edit button at msn-encarta. "Edit" is their way of saying "you are allowed to submit suggestions how to improve the article and you are free to do that be simply making the suggestion as if this was an edit button".
It would be technically possible (but not entirely logical) to have the main author of an article work as the person acknowledging the proposed edit.
Well, if the publication will be in fact a contribution of many authors, the "author" shown on the page should be rather called "editor in chief", collecting and checking other's people contributions. They write, that the idea is that author can agree to put some adds on his/her "knol" and then have some income. So, if you contribute substantially to someone's else "knol" the author shown on the page will get income for your work...
On Dec 14, 2007 7:00 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if the publication will be in fact a contribution of many authors, the "author" shown on the page should be rather called "editor in chief", collecting and checking other's people contributions. They write, that the idea is that author can agree to put some adds on his/her "knol" and then have some income. So, if you contribute substantially to someone's else "knol" the author shown on the page will get income for your work...
I think you may be thinking about it from a more WIkipedia-centric view. I think anyone can start a new article. You're only the "editor-in-chief" of *your* insomnia article, but I can start my own easily enough.
This is why I don't see how this is better than normal web hosting, except for google of course, which will get more ad revenue... :)
except for google of course, which will get more ad revenue... :)
Well, Its irresistible to google or anyone not to place ads, except, of
course, wikimedia..
Yet another source to use when translating/creating articles (assuming it would be okay to use their content on wikipedia)... thanks to google..
--user:alnokta
Hoi, When you read the announcement, it is clear that the author decides if he wants to have adverts. It is not unrealistic to expect a similar option for the license that makes the information available. The range of licenses will need to be compatible with the intentions of Google. As the stated aim is to bring information to the people, a license like the CC-by is not unreasonable. Then there are also the pictures that go with an article; each picture had some attribution with it, they looked like hyperlinks.
As each KNOL seems to be an article that stands on its own, it will not provide the web of information that can be found in our projects.This makes me believe that when people find Wikipedia they are to a large extend not exposed to the Google ads. This could be a reason why a true alternative makes sense.
This is the initial announcement for their project, but there is nothing in there that indicates that it will be available for other languages. English is the language that has the most resources available to it and as such this project will not have that much of an impact. For many other languages Google can have much more of an impact.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 1:38 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 14/12/2007, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
This just in - from official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to- contribute.html
http://www.google.com/images/blogs/knol_lg.png shows a CC-by-3.0 tag. That's a BIG WIN for Wikimedia and what we do - making free content *normal and expected*. If they require contributions to be under a proper free content licence, then I'm a BIG FAN of this endeavour. Same reason Citizendium succeeding (assuming they pick a free licence) would be a big win for what we do - it's not competition, it's expanding the pool of unencumbered knowledge.
The strange thing is with possibliity to editing this by many and simultaneusly puting just one name of author. Or the idea is that only one author can edit? If so, there is no reason to have "edit" tab visible by all.. It is not clear to me, what they really want to do.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.poli.toya.net.pl http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/12/14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 14/12/2007, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
This just in - from official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to- contribute.html
http://www.google.com/images/blogs/knol_lg.png shows a CC-by-3.0 tag. That's a BIG WIN for Wikimedia and what we do - making free content *normal and expected*. If they require contributions to be under a proper free content licence, then I'm a BIG FAN of this endeavour. Same reason Citizendium succeeding (assuming they pick a free licence) would be a big win for what we do - it's not competition, it's expanding the pool of unencumbered knowledge.
The strange thing is with possibliity to editing this by many and simultaneusly puting just one name of author. Or the idea is that only one author can edit? If so, there is no reason to have "edit" tab visible by all.. It is not clear to me, what they really want to do.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
Doubtless they are considering alternative.
Fred
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org