4 ms·

Qwiki seems like something that's easy to prototype but hard to do well. And it seems like a product that you have to do well to monetize. Take the Qwiki entr

Qwiki seems like something that's easy to prototype but hard to do well. And it seems like a product that you have to do well to monetize. Take the Qwiki entry on polyamory, for example: http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Polyamory http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Polyamory Qwiki pronounces it wrong, which means it actually decreases the value of the information it is regurgitating from Wikipedia.

Groxx 16y ago
That's a fairly good example of a failure, really: >The most common symbol is the red and white heart combined with the blue infinity sign[.] Therefore, [the California SSM ruling] legitimizes polygamy and polyamory. The first sentence, which is missing a period but it pauses on like it exists (correctly so), goes with their picture of a purple, upside-down, half-twist-on-each-side triangle. Whups. The second sentence makes no sense in context. I wonder if they pull phonetic information from Wikipedia. If they do, then polyamory wouldn't benefit from it, as it has no phonetic pronunciation there. If they don't, they probably get a lot of foreign-origin words more incorrect than we're seeing right away. edit: Another odd pronunciation: http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/.sch http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/.sch >www...sch.uk is a) incorrectly written, and b) pronounced "w-w-w [long pause....] s-c-h-uck". (letters, followed by "yuck" minus the y). And the "contents" tab is failing to load for me.