Google Knol Opens to Public - Wikipedia Competitor Includes Identified Authors, Rankings, Ads

ABC News ^ | July 24, 2008 | Ashley Phillips

[Zakeet]

In a move widely seen as the Silicon Valley behemoth's answer to Wikipedia, this week Google opened Knol, its own user-generated encyclopedia, to the public.

Unlike Wikipedia, people who write entries on Google's encyclopedia are identified and could even earn a profit from their articles with ads. The more times the article is viewed, the more an author can get paid. Google, of course, gets a cut of the profits.

"The key principle behind Knol is authorship. Every knol will have an author (or group of authors) who put their name behind their content," the company wrote on its blog Wednesday. "It's their knol, their voice, their opinion. We expect that there will be multiple knols on the same subject, and we think that is good."

Knol has been operating on a trial basis with a company-selected, invite-only group of authors since December 2007.

"Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it," the company wrote on its blog in December. "We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of Web content."

Google Knol readers rank the usefulness of entries, adding comments and asking questions. Google will not edit the pieces.

But can Knol unseat current online leader Wikipedia?

[Zakeet]

You can check it out here.

[Cold Heart]

BTTT

[SERKIT]

GRASSY KNOL?

[Borges]

Part of what make Wikipedia interesting is that multiple people update the same article giving it perspective from various angles. And of course it’s udpated much quicker with current events.

[JoJo Gunn]

ping

[Yossarian]

I understand Google turned to its good friend Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to author Knol's article on "Tiananmen Square".

(For those that don't get the joke, check out the difference when you Google "Tiananmen Square" on Google's US site vs. Google's Chinese site...)

[Yossarian]

Replying to myself so I can update my tagline..

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Gee, Professor Smith, we here a google don’t know why no one has viewed your articles on Reagan. They were well researched, written and looked good to us.. but golly gee I guess he’s just not popular any more. Sorry. We have to delete them. Try doing McCarthy, the good McCarthy that is, or maybe Eldridge Cleaver. . . .

[wastedyears]

Darn, somebody already entered Iron Maiden.

[Reagan Man]

Here's another alternative to the liberal Wikipedia and Googles latest entry --- CONSERVAPEDIA

[JerseyHighlander]

There should be a Freeper authorship group created this is NOT identified as originating from FR.

Freepers collectively know a whole lot about a whole lot, we can spread out throughout the different fields of articles, and work to fight slant in the political /cultural areas of knol.

[adorno]

There should be a Freeper authorship group created this is NOT identified as originating from FR.

I'm working on something like that.

But, it won't be affiliated with the left, or the right, or anywhere in between.

It is intended to be unbiased, and balanced.

It is intended to be news, information, and commentaries/editorials.

It is intended to be searchable by author (reporter/columnist), media type (or publisher type), media source (publishers such as NY Times, or NY Post, or FOX news), date (or date range), categories, subjects, country or region related to the article, popularity (number of hits)l It is also capable of searches that include any combination of the above or all of the above.

It is also capable of linking to discussions related to articles.

Reporters or columnists don't need to be affiliated with any organization. They can be independent or syndicated.

The system already has all of the above mentioned capabilities. Just need to work on some of the back-end.

[ShadowAce]

[an amused spectator]

Part of what make Wikipedia interesting is that multiple people update the same article giving it perspective from various angles.

True. Unfortunately, anything politically controversial is seized by a crowd of lying, scum-sucking Leftists who play Calvinball with the Wkik "rules" to ruthlessly suppress any dissent, no matter how true it is.

[an amused spectator]

Say - is it true that you're giving away LAZAMATAZ for free?

I heard it was better than Viagra...

[simicyber]

http://www.narth.com/docs/wikipedia.html

read how the article on NARTH is distorted by lesbian activist.

[an amused spectator]

LOL! Typical Wiki “Calvinball”.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks JerseyHighlander.

has been operating on a trial basis with a company-selected, invite-only group of authors since December 2007

This sounds a bit different from About.com, which has been around for years. :')

[Berosus]

True, but I haven't been able to log into About.com forums, since I switched from Internet Explorer to Firefox.

Regarding Knol, this is also going to compete with Wikipedia's evil twin, the Uncyclopedia!