Google launches Knol as rival to Wikipedia

Google has launched an online encyclopaedia to take on Wikipedia.

Knol, which stands for unit of knowledge, allows internet users to write articles on their own areas of expertise.

The world's largest search engine is hoping that "knols" will be written on every conceivable topic ranging from gardening and pottery to Byzantine art and neo-classical literature.

Google Knol

Full Article: Telegraph.co.uk

No ThanQ Mr.Google.. we are happy with Wikipedia... come out with something innovative instead of something sad like this!

Yeah .. They shud have got something more innovative to take on the giant Wiki !

It even looks horrendous.

Yeah, this sucks. Although I'm a Google fanboy, I don't think I'll be supporting Knol.

Viva Wikipedia!!!

This isnt exactly a wikipedia competitor.
Its more like a repository of articles. The big difference here is that if you write an article only you can edit it (others can edit if you explicitely grant them permission). Add to that the fact that you can insert your own adsense code.
So, google isnt really taking on wikipedia, but trying to create a repository of high quality articles.

Adsense? That's it!

BTW, this would mean that the guy writing an article on Knol should have a really good command over the subject. Else it will be a horrid scenario. And we can only hope the guys writing the articles will write it with a NPOV. We all know the POV wars on Wikipedia.

Well, they have some kind of reputation system (I havent yet looked into it so dunnoe the details).
Anyway, just look at the current articles. Its a rush to get in articles rich in high paying keywords. An awefull lot of them are related to diseases.

Ok. here is a good article I found on this topic.
Google Knol Launches; More Like Squidoo than Wikipedia

Yeah well, people do search a lot about diseases for an online self-diagnosis.

BTW, am I the only one seeing a huge hindrance to the authoring of good quality unbiased articles on Knol 'coz of the involvement of keywords for adsense? I mean, people can tailor crappy stuff just to get hits.

yeah, google needs to do lots of homework to take down wiki
[offtopic]BTW, i like uncyclopedia.org than wiki

[/offtopic]

But the thing is that if the article is crappy then its going to get voted down. So wont get any hits. Hence there is an incentive to write good articles.
However, knol will have to tackle the spamming issue soon though. Heck, even I was thinking about getting something in there just because I expect knol to get high pr and a high pr linkback is always good

But, darn I am too lazy.

^^Well, let's see how this goes.

dOm1naTOr said:
[offtopic]BTW, i like uncyclopedia.org than wiki [/offtopic]

Oscar Wilde rules! Pwns everything else.

well google must have tried to take down uncyclopedia first...
atleast we might get new topics and lots of contents to lol about

It is more of article repository, nothing to do with wikipedia. And old news. Scroll down..

Er... I thought this thing happened a few months back. I have been reading it for a long time. Why is it posted only today ?

A

^^^because the site wasnt live all this days...and yes, it does suck

its crap.. they will try this for a few months and then launch a scathing bid to buy wiki.

bet anyone??

Nope...

I got used to wiki so much that I won't even think about knol.

Wiki rocks. Though basically both provide information on varied topics, Knol can never eclipse Wiki as both very widely differ from each other.

the site UI is also very dull not dat appealing as wiki...

i think they must google 4 more better ways to make it in the lead...

You guys might wanna go through this startup guide at Labnol:

Google Knol - Quick Start Guide

Today I register with Knol and looks to me great idea to have this kinda site

The good points are:

1. Importing content from your blog and your wikipedia account
2. Ads

I'm still with wiki.

The looks suck.

K

I like Wikipedia better.
I'm one of the early users of Wikipedia, I refered articles there from the time when some people doubted it's sucess.

OFFTOPIC:
Anybody using Lively?

wikipedia caters very much to the needed.

wish they make the looks better, if properly implemented it can be a good thing.

k6153r said:
I like Wikipedia better.
I'm one of the early users of Wikipedia, I refered articles there from the time when some people doubted it's sucess.

OFFTOPIC:
Anybody using Lively?

Lively sucks IMO. And it is very heavy as well.