[WikiEN-l] robotically generated content

[Nathan]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:29 PM, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> I think there are ways to signal that you are doing something as an
> experiment and with the requisite humility. A good example is Google
> Sets, which is part of Google Labs:
>
> http://labs.google.com/sets
>
> One of their earliest public experiments, they made clear that it was a
> trial with no practical purpose. Of course, the technology behind it
> surely found its way into some search-related magic. But they don't
> present it as anything more than it is. And because of that, people gave
> it 4.5 stars out of 5.
>
> Cuil, on the other hand, took an interesting technology and pretended
> they had a Wikipedia competitor. They call it an encyclopedia, they name
> it Cpedia, and they make it look like an encyclopedia. But it's full of
> junk. So naturally, people compare it with an actual encyclopedia and
> laugh at it. And then the CEO suggests that the people criticizing them
> just don't understand the problems involved, and until they do they
> should shut up.
>
> That is roughly the same way they failed to build a search engine, and
> it is pretty much the opposite attitude to the one that has made
> Wikipedia so strong: our incredible ambition and substantial pride is
> balanced by frankness, a deep willingness to be self-critical, and and
> ongoing invitation to others to help us improve things.
>
> Cuil could use some of that, but I expect they'll burn through what
> remains of their $33m before they close down forever, going the way of
> Pets.com. And I'll point out that $33m is not far off from the total
> amount ever spent on Wikipedia, so it's a pretty big crater.
>
> William
>

That is a fair and thoughtful indictment of their approach. I have no
particular problem with the other comments in this thread either --
they weren't all substantial criticism, but that's fine as far as it
goes. A lot of other reactions, however, could be boiled down to "You
poopy head idiots!" or some slight variation. The simple truth is that
most business fail, and few attempts at innovation penetrate into
general popularity. Yet we should, and often do, encourage innovation
and entrepreneurial efforts because - even when they fail - such
efforts contribute to their field. Remarks that insult the people
behind Cpedia and Cuil as stupid or senseless can't be taken
seriously, and they deserve the Cuil CEO's disdain.

Nathan