Google's Knol, Expert Wiki, Goes Live 263
Brian Jordan and other readers sent in word that Google has taken the wraps off Knol, its expert-written challenger to Wikipedia. (We discussed Knol when it was announced last year.) Wired has an in-depth look. Knol's distinctions from Wikipedia are that authors are identified by their real names (and verified), and that they can share in ad revenue if they choose to. The service initially features a lot of medical articles, which is interesting considering that Medipedia also launched today. This medical wiki is backed by Harvard's and Stanford's medical schools.
blah (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Online Resources (Score:4, Funny)
Except when the sources are bad. Take this knol article, for instance
http://knol.google.com/k/hunter-handsfield/safe-sex/nAi5F17X/WdH0tg#
This safe sex page doesn't even mention that going into IT can ensure a 100% avoidance of STDS. And they call themselves experts!
Should be an article on conjunctions (Score:3, Funny)
From the content policy:
"Pedophilia, Incest and Bestiality:
Users may not publish written, image, audio or video content that promotes pedophilia, incest and bestiality."
They never said we couldn't promote pedophilia, incest, OR bestiality. First person to get an apology from Google for this gets bonus points :) Screenshot or it didn't happen!
Knol on Wikipedia, Wikipedia on Knol (Score:5, Funny)
Knol on Wikipedia [google.com] is pretty empty. Whereas
Wikipedia on Knol [wikipedia.org] is very informative.
Is that an indicator?
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:3, Funny)
It's not a problem for readers, but you can see why it's attractive for a company like Google. They could never put out a Wikipedia for fear of being seen as The Enemy by people who think the moon landings are fake or that cellphones are making the bees return to their home planet.
Cellphones? I thought it was the Daleks.
Re:Wikipedia ^ ~Wikipedia (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I get the feeling that this is going to be Yahoo vs Google in search world, except this time Google is the Yahoo.
For the complete ClusterF!!! that Wikipedia is, it's got some fascinating information. The articles I read on Knol were frankly shallow by comparison.
It does seem to be skewed towards medical articles, and there might be advantages to having experts write up medical entries.
I'm sure the Google's lawyers quake when they think of someone typing "epileptic seizure" into Google, getting the Wikipedia entry, and some joker has added advice to smear yogurt over the victims nipples.
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:5, Funny)
Or the entry for Knol-it-all
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:5, Funny)
You should write the algebra entry.
No way, he improperly uses upper-case letters for variables. I'll write the "algebra" entry using "x" and "y" and he can write an "Algebra" entry using "X" and "Y".
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:3, Funny)
Hemorrhoids (Score:3, Funny)
All I know is that I was able to read the Hemorrhoids article without seeing a bunch of "action shots" like on Wikipedia. They've won me over.
Re:Hemorrhoids (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not bad, but it's missing something (Score:5, Funny)
I don't mind, I'm used to that. I've been reading slashdot for 10 years.
NO pedophilia, incest and bestiality? (Score:3, Funny)
Doh, I was going to publish an article on "The Sexual Mores of Rednecks".
Well, I guess it's off to Wikipedia I go. Or do you think the Britannica would be willing to buy my text?
Re:Losing Anonymity? (Score:2, Funny)
Do you go to a bum on the street to get your appendix out? Why not?
Because it would be unfair to allow the bum to risk imprisonment just because I have appendicitis.
Re:Losing Anonymity? 8-bit? Haiku? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not bad, but it's missing something (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wikipedia ^ ~Wikipedia (Score:3, Funny)
...smear yogurt over the victims nipples.
Ooooh, that works for seizures too?