New Google Knols Set To Squash Wikipedia! DOWN WITH THE CRAPPIEST WEBSITE ON EARTH!!!
What does everyone think of the infamous Wikipedia website's burial arrangements being put together by the upcoming Knol website courtesy of Google?
Personally, I couldn't be more eager for Knol to come out. I would have loved to have credit for all the bits and pieces of information I added to wikipedia that I didn't get. All those edits that I've seen strangers praise Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales for across the internet, when it was actually my work. It's nice to know that this Knol site will allow the author to take credit for their work. Not only that, I will be glad to have full ownership over my pages and not come back to an article I've worked hard on, only to see stupid edits and mistakes replacing legitimate, well-written info I have added in. Another thing I will be happy about is the fact that we won't have to deal with psychotic administrators of Wikipedia such as Robert Ullman, Spebi, Kwsn, Isotope23, Ryulong, Jpgordon, Yamla, Rlevse, etc., who've all got away with countless unjust acts; blocking and banning, often immediately, for petty and baseless reasons (Durova controversy is a prime example of this); reversions of every last constructive edit of a user based on the fact that they've blocked that user or are just not getting along with them, and in many cases even going so far as deleting entire articles solely based on the fact that they've blocked the creator of that article or aren't getting along with them. In fact, all the sites connected to the Wikimedia Foundation are INFESTED with these types of problems. All the negative light is put on Wikipedia simply because it is the most popular of their sites, but these problems go on with all their sites, such as Wiktionary:
Look at these links of a Wiktionary Administrator Robert Ullman (who's also a user of Wikipedia) as he stalks a user, reverting every last one of their edits with no reasoning behind it, before instating a block without the editor getting a chance to even respond:
Another editor viewing the behavior of the crazed administrator comments, how unjustly the administrators at not only Wiktionary have treated the user, but at Wikipedia as well: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php...&oldid=3421458
With Knols and the full control editors have instead of administrators, it's unlikely that these similar unjust acts will occur. There's also cliques built on these wiki sites for users to get there way that many people complain about that we will no longer have to worry about. I will be happy that the people you go to in order to complain about the crazed admins of the site are not the same admins disguised with a new name from the site as volunteers. Yep! Turns out when you go to Wikipedia to make an official complaint to the company, they have volunteers answering these complaints. Guess who these volunteers are? Admins, in many cases the same admins who have blocked and banned you! What a mess! And if you think I am the only person who is complaining about such problems with Wicrapedia, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, the site is sort of going through a Britney Spears stage these days with several controversies and complaints surrounding it, such as the ban that administrators applied on nearly the ENTIRE state of Utah this September. (Found here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...dia_announced/ ) It's not uncommon for post and reply pages like this one, that have endless complaints about the way that site is run with the way it's edited and it's crazed administators. Didn't take me very much work to find this in a search engine : http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversi...?t6979-50.html Yikes! Pretty much everyone except for the pyscho admins running this sick website are have had it with Wikipedia. Perhaps because nerds have terrible social skills, and Wikipedia is filled with them, there's so much bad communication skills with the site with losers such as Ckatz and HiDrNick and all the admins mentioned.
While I don't know how Google Knols will work completely, it seems these major problems of wicrapedia will not infest their website just by the way they have already described their website. I particularly love love LOVE how you receive credit for your work and ownership over what you write. I also love how a sort of tagline of the site seems to be "Crushing Wikipedia" which is basically in several articles and what Im most happy about. Wikipedia is only popular because Google made it popular. I would have never cared to edit Wikipedia if it wasn't ALWAYS the first search result that came up in the Google Search Engine. Most people look at the first search results other than other other 6 millions pages. Why Google would even put such a crappy website on a front page instead of the 6 millionth is beyond me. No longer are we forced to look at as Google plans to rid it of it's Search Engines. The site's crazed admins and various other problems are infuriating.
With YOU as the author of your work and having complete control over it, what more could you really ask for? You get a monetary credit for your work, which makes it SO much better than Wikipedia which is why I wish some of the people already criticizing Google Knols, without Google even releasing all the details yet, would just SHUT UP. Either Google Knols or you all can keep contributing to friggin Wikipedia and take ZERO credit for your work, which might possibly be referred to by millions.
And dont even get me started on a ridiculous comment that Wikipedia has an edge over Knols because the group effort and a great deal of people know more than one. This is exactly what makes Wikipedia a bad website. For instance, take Wikipedia sourcing. Oftentimes, I will come past a comment that is sourced and I will look it up and it is correct. I will come back a few days later and because 19 or 20 different people have reworded the sentence, it ends up with a totally different meaning. Oftentimes, because there is a source by it, people wont edit it and it remains there for ages. I have seen this on countless Wikipedia articles and it never corrected on many. The contribution of a great deal of people, including all the idiots out there, is not a strength whatsoever of Wikipedia.
It will also be nice to be able to have discussions about the article on Google Knols, rather than going on Wikipedia and hitting the link that says discussion page, and finding yourself bombarded with a zillion never-ending arguments with whining comments such as "According to WP Wiki, you're not allowed to make that edit so there. Cheers!" "This is not encyclopedic and a consensus will have to be reached." In fact, Wikipedia only limits the discussion page to debating about corrections to the article rather than general chat about it. Yep! I really am all for Google Knols and believe it will take off while dismantling Wikipedia. Even if it is not going to completely dismantle Wikipedia because enough people still choose to edit Wikipedia, at least I will have an alternative place to go which will show up in the top results of Google. I will be getting credit for my work while those other people FREELY hang over all their hard work and contributions to Wikipedia to take the credit. And the best part is no longer seeing that ridiculous encyclopedia as one of the first results in every Google search, which should make people less inclined to edit the site. That was my whole incentive of editing it because I thought it was the first thing people were looking at. Without having that privilege from Google, what is Wikipedia really other than something like this http://tv.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno
With Google being the most popular and most used search engine, and with Wikipedia being replaced by Google Knols as one of the first results, Wikipedia WILL NOT have the same amount of traffic for their site. Trust me! The success of the nerded up site was mainly due to the push it got from Google. Google probably noticed all the complaints mounting up from the site and decided not to buy it. Hopefully the rest of the less popular search engines will also get rid of wikipedia as well. Thank you so much, Google.
Article on Google Knols:
Just a few of the MANY articles on craziness of Wikipedia administrators and the fact that the site is a poor project:
Last edited by The_Man; 12-16-2007 at 06:25 PM.
practical experience, FTW
Darn, another one of my illusions blown away. Hmmm, and I did notice as you say, a raspy nerdy influence on some of the Wiki pages I frequent. They almost banned a whole state in the US, (muffled laugh -- it's not funny really).
Private sector (Google) vs Wiki and you're saying Wiki is autocratic. I've found that with many establishments (not all) claiming to be charitable / spiritual / well-meaning, whereas with private industry, you tend to know where you stand -- in or out, they don't mince words because they can't afford to.
Thanks, I appreciate your rant.
wiki has a pretty big footprint in the online space. it may affect those who are searching for such an online reference for the first time, but i imagines there are millions, if not billions, of users with wiki bookmarked, in their toolbar or as their homepage.
the internet, by its very nature, resists monopolization.
Although I, like most people, am happy to see diversification in the knowledge sources out there, I hope Knol doesn't "bury" Wikipedia, nor does it sound to me like I would automatically prefer one to the other. Knol will have several pages about the same topic -- some may be brilliant, some may be ridiculous, and do I really have to comb through them all to judge? A Wikipedia entry has its ups and downs, but the quality tends to "equalize" over time.
I contribute to Wikipedia quite a bit, but I don't really care about being credited for it. It's not for me, it's for the reader. And if it benefits the Wikipedia crew - well, nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to edit the entries. I do so because I like to. So I like that about Wikipedia.
When Google comes out with something truly revolutionary, it dominates. But its "me too" services don't crush competitors like Mapquest and Craigslist. I doubt they'll destroy Wikipedia, either.
Wikipedia represents the death of knowledge. Someone needs to destroy it before it's too late.
Crap, it's too late.
It has its uses. I once used it to do a project on the typeface Helvetica for my Typography II class. Found lots of good tidbits too.
Originally Posted by robeiae
Also learned more about my favorite comic book titles that I wouldn't have otherwise learned from their respective company websites.
Wikipedia is best used as either (A) a quick look-up for simple uncontroversial information, or (B) a pointer to further and more reliable research. So, yeah, it has its uses. I doubt it's going to vanish anytime soon.
I use wikipedia all the time for those exact reasons. I think it's a superb resource for information that's hard to find (or would take far longer to find) using search engines alone. But I wish the site used intuitive spelling like almost every other search facility out there.
Originally Posted by blacbird
Oh, and this morning I found this gem-
Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it.
Tenacious D to the end.
My short film project:
practical experience, FTW
I'm so happy to learn of Knols -- sounds like it will solve Wikipedias two major flaws: author credit and compensation. Hopefully they'll also address plagiarism.
It's sure nice to have the facts on any topic all in one convenient place -- but the "facts" as presented in Wikipedia are wrong a great deal of time, are *always* slanted toward a single politically correct worldview, and much of the information even at the sentence level is cut and pasted from other sources without permission and often without credit. That's why I say that Wikipedia works against writers -- it's just a big cut and paste machine.
Nice useful post, The Man. Welcome to AW.
Is this really a true statement?
Originally Posted by The_Man
The link you reference didn't mention the ENTIRE state of Utah.
It mentioned a ban on editing from an IP address .. that affected only a 1000 homes in Utah .. about 0.14% of homes in Utah !!!!
That means that the original claim is about 99.8% **WRONG**.
(PS: 'knol' looks like 100% direct competition to 'about.com'. In fact - it appears to be basically identical. So how is 'knol' a Wikipedia killer but About.com isn't ?)
Last edited by Mac H.; 12-18-2007 at 09:31 PM.
Mr. The, I suggest you promptly delete this comment. You have broken the # 1 (and only) AW rule: respect your fellow writer.
Last edited by Haggis; 12-18-2007 at 10:27 PM.
Originally Posted by Curlz
Please refer the the rules of this board in this post. Particularly this part:
Originally Posted by JennaGlatzer
Last edited by Roger J Carlson; 12-18-2007 at 10:26 PM.
Reason: no reason to quote a post that's been deleted
--Roger J. Carlson
The_Man will be taking a little break, soon.
ETA: 3 day time out imposed.
Last edited by Dawno; 12-18-2007 at 10:26 PM.
Beyond the disrespect factor, how are we supposed to take things? The onus for communicating a message is on the author; if that message is misunderstood, this is usually not the fault of the reader. This is a writers' board. Words have power. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and be careful how you wield the tools of the trade.
And now we're back to what I said earlier, about the time you declared me ugly. You need to get a feel for a place before spouting off. You're making yourself appear foolish, and I suspect a ban will be forthcoming.
MAC STOP TAKING EVERYTHING SO LITERALLY. IT'S ANNOYING AND PEOPLE WILL BECOME PESTERED BY YOUR MERE PRESENCE LIKE I AM, DORKBOY! BESIDES MORON, WHEN IT SAYS SQUASH WIKIPEDIA, IT MEANS REPLACE IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE EXACT SAME THING IDIOT. GOOGLE IS JUST GETTING RID OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THIS NEW CONCEPT NOT COPYING DIRECTLY OFF IT :/ DUH! SAD I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU
Last edited by The_Man : Today at 12:23 PM. Reason: Mac's being an idiot
Way to burn your bridges, dude.
Maryn, feeling smart and pretty
Personally, I'm sick of Google this and Google that. I fear they're going to take over the world and I'm the only one standing against them. I refuse to use Google for anything. They are evil. EEEEEVIIIIL!
ETA: Oh, drat. The_Man is in exile. I wasted a whole post trying to antagonize someone who isn't here to appreciate it.
“I love words but I don’t like strange ones. You don’t understand them and they don’t understand you. Old words is like old friends, you know ‘em the minute you see ‘em.” -- Will Rogers
"Blame it on my ADD, baby." -- AWOLNATION
practical experience, FTW
Personally I wouldn't mind have several sources for information. A bit like when I was younger and I'd use both Britannica and World encyclopedias to help begin my research of a subject.
close the frick out of this thread.
You the man, Sebby!
Oh. I see.
You mean, "Wait....how could I say that!"
Thank God I can stop waiting now. Took me a while, but I finally figured it out...
Originally Posted by clock_work9
"You don't even know who I am!"