[Agent_Koopa]

I don't think there's been a topic about this yet, but the search sucks, so meh.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c366bb70-aa8a-11dc-a779-0000779fd2ac.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html

[karajorma]

I'm reserving judgement till I can see the Evolution, ID and Abortion knols.

[WMCoolmon]

At least then we'll know who's behind them.

It sounds like an interesting idea, but I don't think it's going to be a competitor to Wikipedia. It sounds more like a resource for some kind of paper or essay, or an online form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. I can't ever see it evolving into an encyclopedia-form, because each article will be limited to what that individual author can do and will not be a centralized, comprehensive overview of the subject matter, but rather a specific point of view.

At least until people start building peer collaboration tools, or if organizations can actually create articles as a group of people. That could get especially interesting.

[karajorma]

It has possibilities.

I remember once reading an article on the TheRegister about Wikipedia's flaws. Apparently some expert in the field had decided to write a wikipedia entry on something he knew lots about. Over the course of the next month wiki editors who knew very little about the subject proceeded to pick apart almost every single thing he'd added and replace it with stuff they liked better. Never mind that they were actually wrong and his submission had been correct.

At least this will have the effect of stopping that nonsense. But will it be replaced by other nonsense where Google search turn up spurious nonsense by crackpots. Edit wars for all their other nonsense keep that sort of crap down.

[Rictor]

With Google’s service, anyone will eventually be able to write a web page about any topic they want, and have it indexed by Google and other search engines. Authors will also be able to benefit from any advertising placed on the page.

So Google wants to invent....the Internet?

Wikipedia is so entrenched by now that supplanting it is futile and needlessly wasteful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[karajorma]

Problem is that wikipedia is all kinds of broken.

About the only thing I trust Wikipedia for is information on Star Wars or Trek. It's usually spot on for that.



What I doubt is that this is a solution. Yeah it won't have Wikipedia's faults but it might have a whole new bunch of it's own. Oh and as for wikipedia being entrenched I'm old enough to remember that Yahoo was pretty much entrenched too before Google kicked them off top spot.

[übermetroid]

Wikipedia is still useful.  You can not use it for quotes during a research paper, but it is a good place to start and to branch out from.

[Admiral_Stones]

Meh. If it continues that way, Google will soon control our entire lives and earth.

[CP5670]

Wikipedia is still useful.  You can not use it for quotes during a research paper, but it is a good place to start and to branch out from.

In other words, you use it everywhere, but just cite something else in its place.

[Koth]

  *whistling innocent tune*

[Janos]

With Google’s service, anyone will eventually be able to write a web page about any topic they want, and have it indexed by Google and other search engines. Authors will also be able to benefit from any advertising placed on the page.

So Google wants to invent....the Internet?

Wikipedia is so entrenched by now that supplanting it is futile and needlessly wasteful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

just like altavista and myspace are

[WMCoolmon]

[Rictor]

Wikipedia is still useful.  You can not use it for quotes during a research paper, but it is a good place to start and to branch out from.

Let me put it this way: I've recently had to research obscure WW2-era airplanes and engineers, relied exclusively on Wikipedia and got pretty damn good results. I would say that for the vast, vast majority of cases, the information it provides is accurate enough for the intended use. Those people who need something more specific or more technical have other places to look.

[Flipside]

I use it as a citation source, so basically, it can give me the information I need, and the references at the bottom come in useful for finding citations to prove what I just found out

[Fearless Leader]

I find wiki helps make you want to go to sleep, and after 4 hours of clicking random you know so little information about so many jubjects you can make smalltalk for the next 12 days

[übermetroid]

ha.  Plus if you need more information you can just add it yourself into Wikipedia

[NGTM-1R]

Wikipedia is still useful.  You can not use it for quotes during a research paper, but it is a good place to start and to branch out from.

This is actually changing. Some professors at UCSD in the semester that just ended had decided to accept it for the first time, and the English department as a whole decided it was an acceptable source.

[übermetroid]

This is actually changing. Some professors at UCSD in the semester that just ended had decided to accept it for the first time, and the English department as a whole decided it was an acceptable source.

I do not think it will be acceptable at my school (AMU) for a long time.  Maybe some time in the future though.

[colecampbell666]