Comments on: Death Knol for Wikipedia? Doubtful http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/ because technology is just another ecosystem Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:42:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Dave http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-251017 Dave Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:49:51 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-251017 As a general-interest blogger, I link to Wikipedia all the time, and I think its <em>caveat emptor</em> public image is a strength rather than a weakness. That's because, as you imply, no single authority can <em>ever</em> really be as authoritative as the lovers of authority and hierarchy would like us to believe. There's a real danger with traditional encyclopedias: it's hard to see the inevitable biases until many decades after publication, if then. I think the marriage of wiki and encyclopedia was a stroke of genius, though imperfect and needing constant maintenance like all marriages. As a general-interest blogger, I link to Wikipedia all the time, and I think its caveat emptor public image is a strength rather than a weakness. That’s because, as you imply, no single authority can ever really be as authoritative as the lovers of authority and hierarchy would like us to believe. There’s a real danger with traditional encyclopedias: it’s hard to see the inevitable biases until many decades after publication, if then. I think the marriage of wiki and encyclopedia was a stroke of genius, though imperfect and needing constant maintenance like all marriages.

]]> By: David Gerard http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-250417 David Gerard Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:01:32 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-250417 Oh, those of us editing Wikipedia are <i>painfully</i> aware of its flaws. It's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress">work in progress</a> (see the long lists of unwritten articles at the bottom of that page), a live working draft ... the problem comes when people assume it's a finished product. With Knol, the main thing we'd like to see is a proper free-content licence on it. The CC-by 3.0 on the mockup is a start. Wikipedia is not in fact a project to run a hideously popular and expensive website, but to create a reusable body of work. So if other organisations do this (Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia of Earth, OpenSite, etc.), then it's all good. And, of course, if they don't do that, they're just recreating about.com or Yahoo Answers. Or Google Answers. Remember Google Answers? I'm sure Google does. Oh, those of us editing Wikipedia are painfully aware of its flaws. It’s a work in progress (see the long lists of unwritten articles at the bottom of that page), a live working draft … the problem comes when people assume it’s a finished product.

With Knol, the main thing we’d like to see is a proper free-content licence on it. The CC-by 3.0 on the mockup is a start. Wikipedia is not in fact a project to run a hideously popular and expensive website, but to create a reusable body of work. So if other organisations do this (Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia of Earth, OpenSite, etc.), then it’s all good.

And, of course, if they don’t do that, they’re just recreating about.com or Yahoo Answers. Or Google Answers. Remember Google Answers? I’m sure Google does.

]]> By: Andy Fundinger http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-250250 Andy Fundinger Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:54:07 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/12/17/death-knol-for-wikipedia-doubtful/#comment-250250 Why do people keep looking at Knol vs. Wikipedia? It's more nearly equivalent to about.com which has been running the same apparent model for years. Why do people keep looking at Knol vs. Wikipedia? It’s more nearly equivalent to about.com which has been running the same apparent model for years.

]]>