Comments on: Google's Wikipedia rival, Knol, goes public

The search giant says Knol authors can also add New Yorker magazine cartoons to their pages and make money from ads accompanying the articles.

[jamalystic]

Welcome to Googlepedia which basically is here to create more online space ads for google and nothing else: Googlepedia?(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=141423&F_src=flftwo)

[williamgeo]

I recall hearing that Google split itself into two corporate entities late 2001/early 2002 in a deliberate attempt to avoid the SEC disclosure issue you mentioned about private companies having x number of employees and y dollars of assets. Put employees in one, assets and a fixed number of employees in the other.
----------------------
williamgeorge
[url=http://www.drivenwide.com]Social Media Marketing[/url]

[jamalystic]

Welcome to Googlepedia which basically is here to create more online space ads for google and nothing else: Googlepedia?(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=141423&F_src=flftwo)

[jamalystic]

Welcome to Googlepedia which basically is here to create more online space ads for google and nothing else: Googlepedia?(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=141423&F_src=flftwo)

[mrorie]

Wow, they can embed New Yorker cartoons? Way to appeal to the .1% of the population that finds them amusing.

[The_Decider]

Wow, that is exactly what Wikipedia was missing: ads.

For many topics Wikipedia is an outstanding source and way to gather up references. In the articles coving science, mathematics, engineering and computer science, it is extremely useful and accurate.

Unfortunately the charges of bias in some(usually in political and historical articles) is usually based on opposite bias by the complainer and not any facts.

It is not 100% accurate, nothing is, but is considerably more accurate then its naysayers claim. Iit has a much broader scope than any other encyclopedia and articles cover the topic in a much broader and deeper way. It is almost the best place to start research, it gives a good overview of a topic and usually gives plenty of resources to delve deeper.

Of course there are problems, I have even seen cyclical references(a wikipedia article(on knights tour) reference an outside resource and that resource referenced the wikipedia article. Stuff that like is a problem even though the article in question was accurate.

Still, it doesn't make a case for Google trying to copy them. Besides, a google search is equivalent to a wikipedia search since Google is indexing every piece of data it can, copyrights be damned.

[NateBiggity]

Google just can't keep it's hands of anything can it?

For me, Wikipedia works perfectly fine. If I ever have my doubts about something on there, I can just follow the references and make my own decision.

Knol just sounds like Citizendium that has gone corporate. At least Citizendium was created by the founder of Wikipedia.

[Flag_Rental]

After checking out both Knol and Wikipedia, I definately prefer the look and feel of Knol. Google has done a great job at making a great user experience.