Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 16 December 2007

Misplaced Pages Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Knol - At last!

About time Knol came along. I am tired of the nonsense that is published by Misplaced Pages. Finally the world according to the world, not a bunch of narrow-minded Misplaced Pages sysops and administrators. 98.195.24.26 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NPoV

This article is quickly slipping away from a neutral point of view due to undue weight of negative Knol reviews. Currently, almost half the article consisits of quotes presented in whole from people with negative forcasts concerning Knol. I don't understand the relevance of any bloggers two cent forcast on what will be the outcome for the web in general as a result of the Google Knol launch. There are two separate paragraphs with quotes from Jimmy Wales put in full: "They are not going to allow collaboration and aren’t going to go for Misplaced Pages’s neutral style" and "You may see an awful lot of articles about Viagra". Do these two quotes add any value to the article, helping someone better understand what a Knol is? Or are they only there to reflect the authors PoV?DuckeJ (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The last quote is juvenile and adds absolutely nothing to the entry.128.2.161.180 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"cannot be edited by others. "

That may be true, but the screenshot shows an edit tab, as well as a revision tab, implying it is running on some sort of Wiki software. Is it definitely true that others cannot edit the articles? 66.254.241.199 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Google, yes - the edit tab will be because the user who created it is currently logged in, and each user will (I guess) be able to edit their own article. All speculation, of course... Alex.muller (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In one article on Knol ( http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006068.html ), there's the sentence, "Authors also have the ability to disallow other users from modifying the entries." That makes it sound like authors may be able to allow others to edit their articles. -- EDarwin (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I tried to add this earlier on Jimbo's talk page via an anon. and it was deleted quickly.

The site looks very promising and appears well thought out and has a massively large capital base for exploiting a social/encyclopedia! The idea of using Google adwords and adspace is a winner. Millions of writers will take their original work and get there in a hurry. Thanks for putting this article up Like a Rainbow (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the strong Misplaced Pages bias in this article, as expected. For too long Misplaced Pages has been ruled by power crazy admins; I'm glad to see an alternative. I hope this will become the death "knol" for the bloated and bureaucratic mess that Misplaced Pages has become. 128.2.161.180 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If I was power crazy, wouldn't I have blocked you for saying that? Please try to stay on topic. This page if for discussion of the article, not the concept. Mr.Z-man 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up blocking me for expressing my opinion confirms my point: Misplaced Pages admins are power crazy. Furthermore, I was discussing the state of the article. It most clearly does not have a NPOV (strong bias towards Misplaced Pages), and I was addressing that fact.128.2.161.180 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But we need to know in what way the article is biased to address the problems. I mean, it's inevitable that the article discusses how knol differes from wikipedia since it has been touted as a wikipedia competitor. -- Taku (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"They are not going to allow collaboration and aren’t going to go for Misplaced Pages’s neutral style" is pretty funny considering how non neutral this article is. The article is biased because there are THREE separate quotes from Misplaced Pages founders that make up the bulk of the entry. Where are the quotes from Google that describe knol in their own words?128.2.161.180 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph and 3rd paragraph contain quotes from Google. Since very little is known about knol, we cannot expand on how it works, etc. For example, nothing is known on licensing terms. Also, since Knol has been compared to Misplaced Pages, quotes from key people involving in Misplaced Pages are quite relevant; they are not some bloggers. Finally, if you can think of a way to improve the neutrality, just go ahead and edit the article. Like me, non-admins can still edit the article, you know. -- Taku (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the article are more than welcome, calling Misplaced Pages admins "power crazy" and predicting Misplaced Pages's death isn't exactly constructive (and is hardly neutral). Mr.Z-man 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point however, this focuses unduly on Misplaced Pages and the quote from Larry Sanger is just needless. Debating about whether a future site will be neutral based on limited information and including with that a quote lambasting it, before it's even off the ground is certainly no in the spirit of neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This unduly heavy focus on wikipedia seems inevitable to me. Almost every newspaper headline contains the name Misplaced Pages. I agree that Sanger sounds a bit harsh given that really little is known about the site. But that's just his take, and to me his comment seems more authentic or relevant than blogger's like Carr's. -- Taku (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I put in some mentions about About.com. I removed the first sentence from Sanger since I felt that was not needed. However, I left his criticism of its setup, since that's at least legitimate. His opinion on whether non-existent articles will be good or not is really not needed, especially considering he's not going to be completely unbiased in saying that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we just place all the data on comparison to wikipedia in a separate section?DuckeJ (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Knol will make WIkiPedia absolete, show me one product that Google has domination in besides the serach engine! None! Google uses a new platform to push their Adsense revenue model, and once they see negative ROI they just abandon it, like an old forum. Good luck Google. Finally, do you think free unbiased thinkers will go debate with I want to be popular? Waste of time! Igor Berger (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Manber

Does anyone know about the relationship between Udi Manber and Rachel Manber, author of the sample page? Are they a married couple? -- Taku (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Google finds a few joint donations to washington.edu ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I thought the earlier opening paragraph was much clearer, simpler and more accurate (Knol is a website that features user-generated articles. It has been described as a rival to Misplaced Pages, the free online encyclopedia.) The current opening paragraph (Knol was announced on December 13, 2007, as forthcoming service (platform) provided by Google. )seems needlessly murky, dense and convoluted. What the heck is a service platform? Seems like you could call any website a "service platform". Why is the date so important? Why say it's "forthcoming" when it actually exists today (although in beta)?--ThirdSide (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of change is that it is not yet clear if knol is a website or not. I thought at first it's like Misplaced Pages but from what I have read it's more like a hosting service; like Google Video. So, the term "service" seems more appropriate. But I agree that the opening paragraph should describe what knol first then gives more context like when it was announced. -- Taku (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I reread the announcement and didn't see anything in his description that would suggest that it should be described as a service rather than a website. He actually doesn't use either term, but I think it would be more logical to call a collection of webpages a "website". --ThirdSide (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A relevant part from the post would be this:

"Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling "knol", which stands for a unit of knowledge. The tool is still in development and this is just the first phase of testing."

So, strictly speaking, knol is a "tool" :) The problem is we are still unsure where there would be "knol.google.com" or something. Without a concrete url, it cannot be said to be a website, I suppose, I have seen nouns like "project", "platform", "attempt", "service" to describe knol. My choice would be a "platform". I think it's better to use some ambiguous term. The resulting unclearness wouldn't be our fault but Google's :) -- Taku (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "planned website" would probably be the clearest phrasing and would be the easiest to change when the website is launched. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think using the term - one not used by Google - is getting a bit ORish. Plus - more importantly - a "website" implies a coherent set of interlinked pages; even if Google has a special domain for this (kool.google.com), the only traffic to the home page is going to be people interested in creating kools, not readers. "Website" implies (to me) something much more akin to Misplaced Pages - an integrated set of pages that people go to deliberately. Nothing we've seen so far indicates that Google intends to do anything other than try to sell advertising on Misplaced Pages-equivalent pages that are high in search results.

Anyway, I'm offering some alternative wording; not perfect, but better, I hope. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot?

Is anybody already working on a bot that will upload all Misplaced Pages articles into Knol? AxelBoldt (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Way too early to think of this kind stuff, I think. -- Taku (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And get money for all 2M articles? lol --Emijrp (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No actually, the other way. Copy all free knolls to Misplaced Pages. -grin ✎ 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i do not think the license under which google will host this tuff will allow this. the whole point is that the matterial will be protected so people will be able to access this stuff only on google and hence use google ads.--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Eww. Don't start. Can you imagine the multitude of GFDL violations of Misplaced Pages on Knol we'll get anyway? Nihiltres 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same as from any other website around. I don't get why everybody's so against this. All it is is another place to have information, the only thing you have here is authenticated authors (probably authenticated through their adds account as they need to provide this to get money from adds). If it'll be well used then great, it'll be easier to find information for Misplaced Pages, and if it won't be well used, then, well, who cares? No skin off our backs. I highly doubt Google will risk their reputation to give knols unjust high ranking. Search is their cash cow and they know it. Just like Blogger pages or Youtube (both also owned by Google) don't get unjustly high ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.82.69 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Google crowd is it is biased on an uninformed mojority view vs. knowledgable minority. So here we come to consenses oout of respect for eachother's authority, but after 7 years around the Google world, I see a lot of one mind set thinking. Do you want to debate with them? I do not, so I would interpet their information as unsientific and just regurgiration of facts! If yopu feel such references are useful to an editor, than please follow them, but in my opinion, which I do not say very often, is that the information refered to will detract from the authority of the topic via mass confussion and mob rule! If you would like to ts my premiss, please go to any official Google help group and question their flawed policy, see what the end result will be! If Google is worng, Google is right, Do not be Evil, Cannot be Evil...How can you arguee with that..:) Igor Berger (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an answer of why you would be against knols. If I understand you correctly (and I'm not really sure I do completely) This is an answer of why you would be against searching for information with the Google search engine at all, as any web page gets higher ranking via mass confusion and mob rule. I believe that the more information on the web the better. I do not think that Misplaced Pages should be the only portal for human knowledge available. I think there is room for a portal in which experts can express their opinion, and I really do not see why the hostility for such a thing besides "fear of the new and different" and the belief that "anything Google does is bad for everyone". All they are doing here is trying to seduce experts to dump their knowledge to the web.212.179.82.69 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Attention_economy Igor Berger (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How To's

I think the comparison to wikipedia are excessive. Knol is for How To's which violate wikipedia's NOR. It's obvious that Knol will become a source forge for How To's. JeffBurdges (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah i def agree, Knol will not compete directly with Misplaced Pages. i do think few people will bother writing articles like we have here. it will feel like a copy of wikipedia unless someone wants to give a specific point of view, but that is mostly confined to political topics and few history topics. i think knol will def be more like a "how to" site.

--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree! Google is going to do what Google is going tto do, and it will never be WikiPedia in authority. "How to, is best description of it!" I do not see any dedicate editors flying over there to contribute.

The only thing that maybe problomatic, if Google plays a Trump card but not using rel="nofollow" fore external links! I hope they do not even think of doing that, but with Big G, anything is possible. So we will need to resepricate, for referenced external documents not externel links. I hope the community will agre to that if that is the outcome! Igor Berger (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Knol, as shown in the Insomnia article, will be a legit source, in that it is reliable. Having a Stanford scientist write the article makes that article a reliable source, unlike Misplaced Pages, which is not. Another advantage is that it will have more depth, I suppose. Misplaced Pages will have the breadth advantage. Tparameter (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is not yet known if credentials like that will be required to write articles or that articles will be required to be that comprehensive. Until they announce more details, its all speculation based on the first announcement. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Predicion

I predict that the site will be the target of much ridicule, especially in Sweden, where the selection of name was especially unfortunate. --MoRsE (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll never work, Misplaced Pages is here, and Misplaced Pages is here to stay. People don't wan't ads- at least, I don't, and Misplaced Pages runs smoothly. Attempting to form what is effectively likely to be a site which forks people off will only make either project weaker, take longer, and become inaccurate. I predict trans-encyclopaedic wars here. Pulsar (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But, unlike Misplaced Pages, Knol looks like it will be a citeable and reliable source. Tparameter (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, Hear! Misplaced Pages started of as a great idea, lust like communism in a way, that is a great idea too. But when power goes to the head of those charged with ensuring that fair play is adhered to the whole system breaks down. Misplaced Pages has turned into a joke an its information cannot be trusted to be accurate at all. the world needs Knol. 58.167.213.128 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But while you are predicting, i have had a look at Knol and i promise you that EVERY wikipedia contributer who is knowledgeable and passionate about their subject will flock to Knol and all that will be left behind are the 19 year old admins who don't have a clue about life and yet try their best to stop wikipedia become an authoritative source on anything. 58.167.213.128 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

URL

Does anyone know what the url for the site is? or will be? ThreeOneFive (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unknown at this stage. There is speculation that it will be knol.google.com as per other Google properties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's eve possible that there won't be any url, because knol may not turn out to be a website at all. This has been discussed above. -- Taku (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture sure makes it seem like a website. In any case, Google owns both googleknol.com and googlepedia.com ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Udi Manbers Googleblog entry: "At the heart, a knol is just a web page... It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page."DuckeJ (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Given that it's a new term, the entry ought to indicate how to pronounce 'knol'. Is it like 'null' or 'gnoll' or somewhere in between? Any sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Mid-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles