Comments:Google announces testing of online reference tool

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

This is pretty cool. I hope that we do well with this new resource of info, and that Google does just as well at designing it. RaphaelFaunus 01:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and dandy, but for some reason, not sure why, its making me think badly of google. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's something fundamentally wrong about editing for money. The wikipedia model strikes me as much more kosher.--DCo1 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its great. finally something to compete with wikipedia, market dominance is never good! I disagree that theyres something wrong with editing for money, its much better than editing for you ego. Hopefully it will atleast plug the gaps where wikipedia has failed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.234.92 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be a wikipedia killer. Wikipedia is so big, the only way it will fail is if it falls from the inside (Which honestly, although still a long long way off, wouldn't really overly suprise me. Although i'm not an active contributor there in the least, it seems that as of recent there has been a general increase in hostility between contributors, which is not good, but then again maybe such things go in cycles; it wasn't that long ago all us wikinewsies didn't behave well). Bawolff ☺☻ 08:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seem to me Google is again stealing the limelight from others. It already rivals Yahoo!, Lycos and all other search engines, now it plans to give Wikipedia a run for its money. I for one don't think that this is very fair on the industry. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Google says they will control the placement of their articles in search results. Does that mean they will push Wikipedia hits down in priority in favour of their own? Jcart1534 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To me this seems very much like Google trying to muscle in on Wiki's territory in a commercial way. Damn capitalist pig-dogs! Bearing in mind Wikipedia being based on the ideal of the sum of human knowledge available to all, trying to compete with wikipedia in a for profit way is shameful. Personally I'm not worried at all though: ""We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line." If this is true then Goggle's attempt won't get off the starting blocks. At best, it might turn in to a rival for Uncyclopedia. As a reference tool, no one cares about opinions and POV. Being verifiable and NPOV is the lynch pin of Wikipedia and anyone who wants to rival Wikipedia in the future will have to follow suit. Shane.Bell 08:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While hopefully it will all be freely licensed, then everyone wins. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's different from wikipedia!

Although often compared with Wikipedia, Google knol has been announced with a quite different feature: not a collaborative effort, but with a limited number of authors (possibly one) per topic. And, unlike Wikipedia and Wikibooks, the author(s) will be strongly shown on the page, like in a blog or in a paper book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.45.97 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical about revenue

As a rule, sites online that promise "revenue" seem to end up offering editors a few pennies, with the technical proviso that they don't have to send a check unless you get a few dollars. Until I see evidence otherwise I'm guessing that if you work full-time editing and do a stellar job, you'll make a decent wage for life in New Delhi. 70.15.116.59 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Other Shoe

The main worry that I have about Knol is that it is typical for an "alternative" to the public domain to appear at around the same time that an active attack is made on it. (I'm not saying this is necessarily the order of the cause and effect) For example the American Chemical Society lobbying attack against PubChem and by extension all of the NCBI indexes came at the end of 2004, just after the introduction of Google Scholar. Likewise, the well-known legal attacks on music sharing software were accompanied by efforts to produce rival for-pay services, although in that case there was some delay during which it was publically recognized that the lack of for-pay alternatives was hindering the music industry's attempts - an exception that proves the rule as it were. This pattern tells us that we should be on the lookout for significant trouble over the next year. 70.15.116.59 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)