Comments on: Knol vs. Wikipedia: A Follow-Up

By: Transparency or FAIL | The Noisy Channel

Transparency or FAIL | The Noisy Channel — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:27:54 +0000

[...] human beings are corruptible. But our systems should be less easily manipulated. A movement against excessive online anonymity would be a good start. There’s a trade-off between privacy and information accountability, [...]

By: Daniel Tunkelang

Daniel Tunkelang — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:53:29 +0000

Adoption rate meaning the growth in entries or the growth in traffic? The former doesn’t move me, especially if Knol’s editorial regime (or lack thereof) is looser than Wikipedia’s. What will convince me is growth in traffic. For that matter, I can’t recall ever seeing a Knol page in my search results except when I included the term “knol” in my search.

That’s not to say that Wikipedia can’t be dethroned by something better. But I’d say that Wikipedia has set the bar very high. And the collective effort expended to create it sets a very high entry barrier for would-be competitors.

By: Holden Page

Holden Page — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:45:01 +0000

Adoption rate of Google Knol is much more of that then Wikipedia. I agreee with the financial motives completely. There needs tobe a system to seperate the money makers and the people who truly want to create information. I have no problem with people getting something in return for what they have done.

Perhaps it is premature to write Knol’s obituary. But I agree with Manjoo’s conclusion: “The problem is that we don’t need the next Wikipedia. Today’s version works amazingly well.”

Funny… people said that about Feedburner now look where we are at.