Talk:Knol

Some questions, which are nice to be answered in article: What is the difference between knol article and blog entry ? Are there any special means for linking knols which are better than html-linking blog entries ? Is it possible to discuss knol article ? What is the status of the project - is it dead, where one can read roadmap and list of expected features? Arsen.Shnurkov (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Blind Faith

Anonymous edit imposed the wording of the Wired article as "brainchild". There is already a reason to consider the choice of wording. Miroj (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of imposing the wording; if you're quoting an article, you can't go about changing the wording, no matter how much you disagree with it. DuckeJ (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a contention that something was overstated. It is not an emotive or personal thing. Even Google by its own admission have stated that they evolved the Knol concept from existing objects in Cyberspace. After 10 years of internet development there are not many people coming up with fresh ideas which have no heritage. All other claims aside. Miroj (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) " The idea of a knowledge repository is very general and very popular. Many similar efforts existed before Knol (Nupedia, Wikipedia, Scholorpedia, Squidoo, Citizendium, etc) and it is not so hard to think that someone would guess that Google would do something similar, " William Strathearn of the Knol team. Miroj (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Squidoo

the Knol model reminds me of squidoo.com more than anything else as far as models go. Is anyone talking about that comparison? Lot 49a^talk 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

criticism

"Commentators have called it a "wasteland" of articles copied from other sources, entries that were outdated or abandoned, as well as spam or self-promotion.[17] Knol is frequently criticized for featuring incomplete and inaccurate articles.[14]"

Sounds like another site I've heard of. Which one was it, now. . .I just can't recall. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.176.212 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything, and I mean anything, is better than wikipedia! Wikipedia has been taken over by bots and uberdweebs who attain gratification by deleting everything (except for what needs to be deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.104.204 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Authorship by definition promotes the status of thought and ideas by one person. Whether those ideas are original or not can never be decided. Not even by Patents. In a world of billions of dreams, ideas and thoughts .. precisely which thought or idea is new ? Perhaps only the one to ignore it all, which no person seems to be able to do. By the internet, authorship will be degraded to a form of blame rather than praise. Miroj (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else see the irony in having a Wikipedia article that heavily criticizes a competitor for its lack of neutrality? This article should be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.171.197 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Who can trust such a caricatural article? I'm afrait it does not enhance the image of wikipedia as a neutral and open encyclopedia. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Knol seems more akin to a Wikiversity or Wikibooks/Blogspot hybrid than Wikipedia.

I don't see this becoming a competitor to Wikipedia; it's totally different. The lack of community control over articles make it a horse of a very different color. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The knol system can be continued if certain discoveries in logic and general linguistics are real

(84.101.36.81 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)) Are the discoveries about Aristotle and Maimonides that Jean-François Monteil evokes in his knols real ? Should the traditional square of opposition, called square of Apuleius, be replaced by the logical hexagon of Robert Blanché for the benefit of logic and general linguistics ? Has the formula of strict implication been found  ? If all those important questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then the knol system will live again.

==

I wish to point out that Knol will live again but not as Knol. There is in all likelyhood a better way of publishing ideas on the internet and not just for the lucky few who have great technology and great resources. We need to turn out attention to who is struggling with the internet. That is where the future is. [user:miroj]