3 ms·

Not really sure why people keep calling this a Wikipedia clone - seems much closer to Squidoo than to Wikipedia, to me. Granted, that's a debate that's already

Not really sure why people keep calling this a Wikipedia clone - seems much closer to Squidoo than to Wikipedia, to me. Granted, that's a debate that's already been had and done (back in December, if I recall correctly). * disclaimer: I have worked with Squidoo in the past, and still have a couple of lenses there. I'm not taking a position on which is better - just pointing out a better comparison.

danhak 18y ago
Don't know about Squidoo, but based on my brief look at Knol it seems very distinct from Wikipedia for a single reason: individual authors credited along with name, photo and profile link. I think this flies in the face of many things that made Wikipedia a success. Not to mention my first instinct was to visit knol.com, the website of a Dutch company who manufactures something resembling a crippled R2D2 using a walker. I vote against this project as a serious rival for Wikipedia but only time will tell.
- unalone 18y ago
  Squidoo and Knol seems to have the same idea behind it. Knol has the advantage of looking very nice in the process, and - of course - being sponsored by Google. Seth Godin is bright, but Squidoo is not fun to use and not fun to look at. Knol has an edge there. The fact that Google didn't buy Knol.com is sort of odd, agreed. I don't think this can compete against Wikipedia. It can, however, serve as a supplement - it doesn't have the disadvantage of tyrannical, half-crazed admins. That makes it much freer than Wikipedia, in a sense, and that'll give it an advantage in quantity, if not quality.
- breck 18y ago
  I bet those crippled R2D2's start flying off the shelf. (I also went to knol.com first). Could they become the next utube.com?
ars 18y ago
It's the 'pedia part that's like wikipedia. Not the wiki part. They want to make an online encyclopedia. I hope it succeeds, wikipedia is so full of wrong, but verifiable, information that it's hard to use it. (ColdFusion, UFO's, and the Singularity, are wonderful examples of wrong, but verifiable.)

danhak 18y ago

Don't know about Squidoo, but based on my brief look at Knol it seems very distinct from Wikipedia for a single reason: individual authors credited along with name, photo and profile link. I think this flies in the face of many things that made Wikipedia a success. Not to mention my first instinct was to visit knol.com, the website of a Dutch company who manufactures something resembling a crippled R2D2 using a walker. I vote against this project as a serious rival for Wikipedia but only time will tell.

unalone 18y ago
Squidoo and Knol seems to have the same idea behind it. Knol has the advantage of looking very nice in the process, and - of course - being sponsored by Google. Seth Godin is bright, but Squidoo is not fun to use and not fun to look at. Knol has an edge there. The fact that Google didn't buy Knol.com is sort of odd, agreed. I don't think this can compete against Wikipedia. It can, however, serve as a supplement - it doesn't have the disadvantage of tyrannical, half-crazed admins. That makes it much freer than Wikipedia, in a sense, and that'll give it an advantage in quantity, if not quality.
breck 18y ago
I bet those crippled R2D2's start flying off the shelf. (I also went to knol.com first). Could they become the next utube.com?

ars 18y ago

It's the 'pedia part that's like wikipedia. Not the wiki part. They want to make an online encyclopedia. I hope it succeeds, wikipedia is so full of wrong, but verifiable, information that it's hard to use it. (ColdFusion, UFO's, and the Singularity, are wonderful examples of wrong, but verifiable.)