"A knol is an authoritative article about a specific topic."
Perhaps so, but you'd not think so from this policy. There's a great gulf between the branding and what it allows.
And then from another help page, "Voice your opinion!"
Excuse me, but how is that supposed to comprise an "authoritative article"? Authoritative about what? Just anyone's opinion? Like they say about opinions and a certain private part of human anatomy....
This project is going to get awfully messy very quickly, and hence pretty useless, unless there is a much more detailed content policy that much more delimits what a "knol" is.
Right now, the policy allows for material that is highly idiosyncratic. Here's some examples:
I've already read way too many articles here where the author is continually using "I", "I", I". That belongs on a personal blog, as do opinion pieces (or perhaps at opine.google.com)!
Think "encyclopedia", folks! Otherwise, this thing's gonna flop, I'm afraid.
And really, it probably *should* flop because of such design incongruity.
Perhaps the engine underneath knol will simply bury the trash to never see the light of day. But if so, why not just tell people that up front in a detailed content policy?
Perhaps so, but you'd not think so from this policy. There's a great gulf between the branding and what it allows.
And then from another help page, "Voice your opinion!"
Excuse me, but how is that supposed to comprise an "authoritative article"? Authoritative about what? Just anyone's opinion? Like they say about opinions and a certain private part of human anatomy....
This project is going to get awfully messy very quickly, and hence pretty useless, unless there is a much more detailed content policy that much more delimits what a "knol" is.
Right now, the policy allows for material that is highly idiosyncratic. Here's some examples:
- Joe's Daily Extreme Right-wing Rants on Topic [Whatever], Monetized Version (cross-posted to The Free Republic, of course)
- The Treatise of the American Marxist-Anarchist Alliance (Who? Well, it's these three roommates, ya see, and they sorta came up with this thing one night)
- Sally's Silly Spacey Story ("Hey, it's authoritative, I was at the bar that night! At least that's how I remember it! See Stacey's MySpace page for HER version here. TTFN.")
I've already read way too many articles here where the author is continually using "I", "I", I". That belongs on a personal blog, as do opinion pieces (or perhaps at opine.google.com)!
Think "encyclopedia", folks! Otherwise, this thing's gonna flop, I'm afraid.
And really, it probably *should* flop because of such design incongruity.
Perhaps the engine underneath knol will simply bury the trash to never see the light of day. But if so, why not just tell people that up front in a detailed content policy?
Murry Shohat
New Meta Impressions
I have a vision of Google brains sitting around discussing the Knol experiment. They have something we don't. They have Meta data which clearly characterizes all the content on a scale ranging from pure junk or trash to superb "units of knowledge." The data shows a clear trend toward the latter, and suppression of the former. The engine behind this, of course, is Search.
What's missing is a metaphorical "bowel." All of the junk is still in the system. It would not be a problem to catalog it using provided Search Tools. The catalog would be the bowel. Now, we need a rectum and anus. Bowel, rectum, anus, a digestive system for the garbage.
But content policy actually encourages garbage by not interfering with freedom of speech. Content policy is the cork in the anus. It's my belief that Google must find a way to pull the cork, take a laxative and stand back!
Anonymous
Initial Impressions of Knols
Do knols enable freedom of expression? Agreed. Looks like vanity publishing on steroids; its main appeal so far appears to be enabling people to publish wikipedia-like things without having to worry about others messing up their stuff (and without the related organization). And the comments at times descend to the same level seen in the comments on articles offered by online major news publications ("Obama is great!" "Obama stinks!")
"Authoritative articles?" No. I agree with Stephen -- design incongruity. There's a contradiction between freedom of expression/voicing one's opinion and authoritativeness which knol does not resolve. Mere personal opinion does not confer authority. The rating system doesn't seem robust enough to generate user-conferred authority. Most of the authoritativeness I've seen so far is derived externally, e.g., by authors' degrees (M.D.s etc.).
Zanshin Post
Untitled
The distinction between fact and opinion is not always that clear.
In the domain of argumetations one can distinguish between 3 types of claims: fact claim, value claim, policy claim.
As a reader of the internet I am interested at all three types of claims.
Your "Think "encyclopedia", folks!" would not work for me.
Ai you know (I assume, having read your bio) there is a difference between schooling and education.
Zanshin