Google unfurls less laughable Wikipedia
source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/google_opens_knol/
-
-
- DeliaTheArtist
- added this
"Back in December, the search engine cum world power announced an anyone-can-edit online encyclopedia it insists on calling Knol, and this morning, with a post to The Official Google Blog, product manager Cedric Dupont and software engineer Michael McNally opened things up to world+dog.
Yes, Google is going head-to-head with Wikipedia, the cult that once saved it from extinction. But unlike Wikipedia - where Jimbo Wales hides his crazed cohorts behind anonymous accounts - Knol asks that you put your name on whatever you write.
"The key principle behind Knol is authorship," Dupont and McNally write. "Every knol will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content. It's their knol, their voice, their opinion. We expect that there will be multiple knols [grassy ones too? - ed] on the same subject, and we think that is good."
Others can edit your knol - short for "knowledge," apparently - but not without your approval. "We are introducing a new method for authors to work together that we call 'moderated collaboration,'" the Goolgers continue. "With this feature, any reader can make suggested edits to a knol which the author may then choose to accept, reject, or modify before these contributions become visible to the public."
All in all, a more sensible setup than Wikipedia. If people across the globe are posting opinions to your site, it's good to call them opinions. But Wikipedia has its advantages. Most notably, its easier to make fun of."
What the hell is going to be the difference between this and Wikipedia? I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it's not a horrible site- most of their info is accurate and with any website, you should cross reference your research! But why is Wikipedia laughable and this isn't?
Yes, Google is going head-to-head with Wikipedia, the cult that once saved it from extinction. But unlike Wikipedia - where Jimbo Wales hides his crazed cohorts behind anonymous accounts - Knol asks that you put your name on whatever you write.
"The key principle behind Knol is authorship," Dupont and McNally write. "Every knol will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content. It's their knol, their voice, their opinion. We expect that there will be multiple knols [grassy ones too? - ed] on the same subject, and we think that is good."
Others can edit your knol - short for "knowledge," apparently - but not without your approval. "We are introducing a new method for authors to work together that we call 'moderated collaboration,'" the Goolgers continue. "With this feature, any reader can make suggested edits to a knol which the author may then choose to accept, reject, or modify before these contributions become visible to the public."
All in all, a more sensible setup than Wikipedia. If people across the globe are posting opinions to your site, it's good to call them opinions. But Wikipedia has its advantages. Most notably, its easier to make fun of."
What the hell is going to be the difference between this and Wikipedia? I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it's not a horrible site- most of their info is accurate and with any website, you should cross reference your research! But why is Wikipedia laughable and this isn't?
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Tech, Green, 2 more
-
- tags:
- News, News and Politics, Green, Tech, 6 more
