Talk:Knol/Archive 4

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"Commentators have called it a "wasteland" of articles copied from other sources, entries that were outdated or abandoned, as well as spam or self-promotion.[17] Knol is frequently criticized for featuring incomplete and inaccurate articles.[14]"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. Miroj (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for closure
Are there any published comments on the reasons of the closure? (Besides trivial rants that it sizzled, etc.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. The article as written is greatly diminished by the total absence of a "closing" paragraph describing the reasons for and process by which Knol was taken offline. All we have at this writing is this line from the first paragraph: "The project was closed on April 30, 2012, and all content was deleted by October 1, 2012." Someone familiar with the subject should expand that into a final paragraph explaining, however briefly, the grounds for termination, and possibly the ongoing effect of Knol's brief existence and/or disappearance, if there is any. Laodah 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody cares. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216133937/http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/12/googles_knol_no.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/12/googles_knol_no.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)