[Foundation-l] Knol, a year later

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What I like about Google is that they have the guts to try things out. I
like Google because they allow their staff to things that intrigue them.
This has brought me gmail among other things. With Google things may fail.

What you express is the expectation that Knol would fail and I am with you,
I had the same sentiments. A project like Knol is not of interest because it
confirms our assumptions, it is of interest because it challenges our
assumptions. I hope we will continue to have our assumptions tested because
this will keep us on our toes.
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/8/7 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>

> More than a year ago Google lunched Knol. It was a sensation then
> (BTW, it was a sensation for more time than Wolfram Alpha was). Today
> I just may say that I don't remember when I heard for the Knol last
> time.
>
> More than a year ago, I've wrote a blog post about Knol [1] (I didn't
> read it again, so I am not so sure what did I write there :) ) and
> today I've got one comment about Knol at my blog post. Person who made
> it introduced himself as Michael:
>
> "There is the Verifiability of Knol. I never found anything relevant
> or reliable on knol. Knol is starting to be used as a spam platform
> and self promotion platform. There are high chances that the info you
> get from knol is false or subiective, not to say that I’ve found
> articles promoting xenofobism, antisemitism and a lot of ill guided
> authors. At this time knol seem to be nothing more than a blog
> platform (with clever marketing) where people can write anything they
> want. I hardly see any resilience between Wikipedia and Knol,
> Wikipedia has Verifiability (”editors should provide a reliable source
> for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be
> challenged”) while on knol you can write any phantasmagoric or lunatic
> thing you want nobody really cares if it’s false or true or what
> repercussions may have on people seeking knowledge. Knol has nothing
> to do with knowledge, it’s just library of opinions not knowledge,
> unless we agree on the fact that anything that can be written by
> anybody is knowledge. So from my point of view knol should not be
> taken serious at this time, at least not more serious than anybody’s
> blog on the internet."
>
> My response is:
>
> "Michael, thanks for the comment. Yes, I’ve supposed, at Knol’s
> beginnings, that bias may become its significant problem. It doesn’t
> have self-regulation and collaboration as a default, like Wikipedia
> has. And the product is obviously bad.
>
> We’ve got, also, one significant lesson: An organization which is very
> good in many businesses, like Google is, don’t need to be even average
> in another business. (Wikia is, for example, much better than Knol in
> that business.)
>
> Also, I think that voluntarily knowledge building can’t be built as a
> [commercial] business model. Nobody cares to make a lot of money to
> someone else and almost nothing for herself, but a lot of humans care
> to build knowledge for all of us."
>
> [1] -
> http://millosh.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/google-knol-and-the-future-of-wikipedia-and-wikimedia/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>