Talk:Knol/Archive 2

URL

Does anyone know what the url for the site is? or will be? ThreeOneFive (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) A guy I spoke to yesterday said it is going to be called "UNI PEDIA" (Google's Universal Encyclopedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.43.183 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unknown at this stage. There is speculation that it will be knol.google.com as per other Google properties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's eve possible that there won't be any url, because knol may not turn out to be a website at all. This has been discussed above. -- Taku (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture sure makes it seem like a website. In any case, Google owns both googleknol.com and googlepedia.com ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Udi Manbers Googleblog entry: "At the heart, a knol is just a web page... It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page."DuckeJ (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Given that it's a new term, the entry ought to indicate how to pronounce 'knol'. Is it like 'null' or 'gnoll' or somewhere in between? Any sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It rhymes with 'call,' according to NPR -- I believe it was mentioned on All Things Considered, but it's not showing on NPR.org's search engine. Konamaiki (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... it's pronounced the same way as the first part of the word "knowledge". Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"KNOL" is just the codeword, the real name has not been officially annonced. Google aren't stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.43.183 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I have added a parenthetical note in the introductory paragraph.Dbarefoot (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In my accent, at least, "call" sounds noticeably different to the "knowl" in "knowledge". It's best to avoid analogies and just use IPA for pronounciation, otherwise you mislead people with different accents.—greenrd (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenrd: Go ahead and correct it--I'm not overly familiar with the appropriate citation usage.Dbarefoot (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all speculation. I've seen no mention to pronounciation in our references, and it seems the only official release so far is from the Google blog. There is currently no mention of it in NPR. There's no reason to post speculation, I'm removing it, we can repost once it starts appearing on TV and there is a reference. DuckeJ (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's from "knowledge": "Like Wikipedia, articles in knol (the name derives from “knowledge”) will be free to read online." (emphasis mine)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali'i (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, we should have reliable source verification of the pronunciation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia is not Knol

If Google wants to promote Knol they should have a Knol public discussion forum on Knol or Google domain!

(redacted[2])

Enough is Enough! (redacted[3]) Igor Berger (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for these allegations of astroturfing?—greenrd (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this?

why does an anonymous user delete controversial talk? Undid revision 180866477 by 67.173.204.223

Konol Talk HistoryIgor Berger (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin here at Wikipedia, but I can help you. If you want I can remove your comments and spare you some embareassment. --125.60.248.139 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no direct physical evidence to my statement, there is circumctential evedince which is guilt by association, based on rampant vandalism to delete this section of Talk:Knol, which I have started to catalog at WikiProject Spam Vandalism and social engineering of Wikipedia Knol article. Any further attempts to deolete this section will be seen as additional proof of an attempt of social engineering of WikiPedia percation of Knol. WikiPedia is built by consensus not by destruction. Anyone is welcome to join the discussion on this article in a creative contributing matter. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edits made to this discussion are well documented in the "history" tab. Read the justifications of deleting the text. It is not "social engineering" but actually somewhat justified deletions of material that, strictly by the rules, does not rightfully belong in the talk page. While I don't agree with the anonymous editor and I believe he is stretching the limits of the rules beyond necessary and even sometimes deleting discussions that are not harmful and even some that have to do with the editing of the article, (such as discussions about validity and meaning of some quotes), it is clear that it is not deletions of vandalism or spam. Lets reach an agreement that if someone thinks a certain discussion should not be held in this talk page that he first reply to the discussion explaining himself, and stating that he does not think this is the proper forum for the discussion, let people have a chance to respond and only then delete the discussion. This delete-revert-delete is childish, needlessly aggravating and counter-productive.DuckeJ (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we all need to talk about what we want to do and get a consensus with authoritative editors before an action is taken.Igor Berger (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the accusations from Igor Berger (talk), I have posted on his talk page.71.226.158.141 (talk)T.L.Sawyer —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the matter User_talk:Igorberger#71.226.158.141 Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please learn what is Social engineering and how destructive it is to WikiPedia, to Knowledge, and Society as a whole. Igor Berger (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To the administrator supervising this talk, if you feel that the comments that I have started here are unproductive for the article, please delete them. I withdraw myself from further participating in Talk:Knol because in my opinion this talk is not relevent to WikiPedia and should not even take place on WikiPedia but on Knol domain. This is WikiPedia and there is Knol lets not mix the two up. Igor Berger (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, wikiPedia is not Knol, Wikipedia is KNOL with a vicious EDGE! --125.60.248.139 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Terry Heath Quote

I removed this section:

Others predict Knol will become a hangout for Internet Marketers, rivaled only by Squidoo. Much like creating a Squidoo lens, entrepreneurs can create “knols” to establish themselves as an authority on their given subject, creating a cashflow by allowing Google to monetize the page.

The section quoted http://www.terryheath.com/11/google-knol-wikipedia-with-a-face/

Firstly, "others" is a weasel word. Secondly, this is the opinion of a single blogger, Terry Heath, who does not seem to be of any important calliber, unlike the others quoted for their opinion in this article. Lastly, this is a word-for word copy-paste of his blog, which is a copyright violation. DuckeJ (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. -- 125.60.248.139 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Coining the term

This paragraph was added at the begining of the article:

A unit of knowledge was first defined as knowl by Bhekuzulu Khumalo in a 2004 self published book entitled "The Fundamental Theory of Knowledge." A follow up to this book was a paper also entitled the Fundamental Theory of Knowledge and can be found at this site, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3743/1/MPRA_paper_3743.pdf . It is evident from this paper that unit of knowledge was first described as knowl by the author. Knowl is merely a shortening of the word knowledge, the first five letters. That Google has shortened the unit of knowledge to knol is probably for convenience.

I really don't know who first though of "defining a unit of knowledge". One could claim that it was first thought of in information theory with the definition of a bit of information. Obviously, there is no place for mentioning the information theory definition of knowledge or information in an article on Googles knols - they really have nothing to do with each other. From what I understand from reading this paper, the author, Bhekuzulu Khumalo, tries to give an economic definition of knowledge, helping his argument that knowledge is a commodity and has economic value, so he must unitize it, defining a thousand 'knowls' the amount of knowledge needed by a cave man to survive. In the same way that the information theory definition is irrelevant to the article on Googles knol, this economic definition is also obviously irrelevant. It does nothing to help give the reader a better understanding of the term. DuckeJ (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. --125.60.248.139

The Evidence is Clear

A bit is not a unit of knowledge, the fact remains that Bhekuzulu Khumalo was the first person to even suggest that knowledge needs its own unit so that we can understand it in the same manner that mass has kilograms, distance meter or miles, volume liters, the evidence is clear in two distinct papers, one that is quoted above, the fundamental theory of Knowledge, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3733/1/MPRA_paper_3733.pdf as well as the paper where he actually attempts to show a way to measure knowledge count it because it has been unitized so to say in this paper "Measuring a Societies Knowledge base", http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3734/1/MPRA_paper_3734.pdf. Take Googles project Knol and take the paper measuring a society's knowledge Base, it seems google is trying to collect all the knowledge of the world and we can the count it and say 400 knol or 10 million knowl, or knowl as the term was originally coined as. The evidence is clear and there is nothing to fret about, the first human to say knowledge needs its own unit will always be Bhekuzulu Khumalo, no matter who likes it or not, why worry you can not make money from coining a term just well deserved respect. Paul James Smith (99.225.208.163 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Had Google not called it "knol" but called it a "byt" someone could claim that it was a unit of knowledge like a bit is a unit of information, simply because "byt" is spelled like "bit", but this wouldn't have mattered, there is no real relation between these "byts" and "bits" and understanding what a bit is does nothing to help you understand what a "byt" is. If anything, it will only confuse you.

In a symetric fashion, for me, understanding what a "knowl" is does nothing to help me understand what a "knol" is. One is a term defined with economic motivation to explain the market value of knowledge, and the other is a project developed by a web company within which you write articles. The fact that they have unfortunately similar names is irrelevant to the fact that they actually have nothing to do with each other and, most importantly to us as writers of an article on it, knowing what one term means does not help you understand the other. Lastly, with the information currently available there is no way to show that anyone in Google ever even heard of a "knowl" let alone show that they named their project after it, so the speculation about its "true origin" is original research. I haven't found one reliable source to connect between the two. The only source I found is some blog post claiming to be by Bhekuzulu Khumalo himself [4]. DuckeJ (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was called a zumble as a unit of knowledge, its like saying holicko instead of kilograms, true a Holicko might be used in some societies, however that is irrelevant, the two papers quoted above are the first that unitize knowledge, google could have used zomble and said that is a unit of knowledge but it still remains, those papers are the first time we heard of a unit of knowledge, first I ever heard of it, show me anybody else even suggesting knowledge should have its own unit be unitized so to say no matter what the name be it zomble, gereio, knowl, deorieum, knol before Bhekuzulu Khumalo and you will be hard pressed, because nobody ever thought of it, if somebody believes in blind coincidence good. I mean one can say something weighs one kilogram or one can say it weighs 2.2 kilograms, or 35 ounces, does it matter, it remains nobody ever thought of unitizing knowledge before that author, Wikipedia is about learning and passing on facts. A blog is not a paper, a blog is where one promotes their ideas in a non academic manner, most people have blogs to bring out their work into the fray because there are few other channels, that would be available to somebody with a name like Bhekuzulu, Zulu does it not remind you of what was considered half naked savages, would mainstream society allow such a person. Paul James Smith (Paul James Smith (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

SPAM --125.60.248.139

OK, We're making progress. We agree that the name is irrelevant. Now, two questions remain; are they both talking about the same thing, and does mentioning a knowl in an article on knols help a person in understanding what a knol is. For the first question, I think they are not at all the same thing. A knowl is 'unitization of knowledge' in the economic sense. when you want to evaluate the economic value of gold, you must first unitize gold as 5 tons of gold has different economic value than 2 gramms of gold. Thus, a 'knowl' is an atempt to unitize knowledge in the economic sense, so that one can claim that 40 knowls of knowledge are worh more than 3 knowls of knowledge. The sense here is an abstraction, a unit. And the articles you gave are an attempt to try to thus unitze knowledge.

On the other hand, a knol is two things, an internet project in which people can write HTML documents in a certain format, have peer reviews and possibly get ad revenue shared with Google, and a name for those HTML documents themselves. Now, I'm sorry, but any attempt to try to say that a knol and a knowl have anything actual in common is totaly contrived. There is exactly the same logic in saying that a Wikipedia article is in fact a knowl, and give Bhekuzulu Khumalo mention in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia.

And as for the second point, which I'll repeat again as it is most important: mentioning and explaining what knowls are in a Wikipedia article on knols does nothing to help the reader understand what a knol is, and will only confuse them. And this, IMO is the important point here, and is the bottom line reason I do not think it should be mentioned here. DuckeJ (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To understand something one must read it, from what I read of Bhekuzulu's work, he explicitly said that there are laws of existence, and every basic law of existence has the same value in terms of nature, because if one law was suddenly did not exist then existence would be fundamentally diffrent, he called these laws of existence point X. therefore in terms of existence for example the law that governs 1 + 1 is equal to E = MC². this is saying to the universe, to existence 5 tons of gold is no more important than 5 tons of iron. If gold did not exist, existence would be fundamentally different, if iron did not exist then existence would be fundamentally different. Therefore in terms of knowl, all laws of existence at their most basic have the same value. What is a knol, knol has been described as a unit of knowledge, a knol page is the first thing one would look at. As each page would be a knol, a unit of knowledge as Google says, each page would have the same value if each page is a knol representing a unit of knowledge. Use knowledge now is a different concept. By the way you can read this paper on point X and point u written by Bhekuzulu Khumalo entitled "Point X and the Economics of Knowledge" to be found at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3735/1/MPRA_paper_3735.pdf. The idea being of course to read and understand, not to rush. Use knowledge was termed point U, use knowledge is derived from the laws of existence. Every material good is what it is because of the inherent properties of the materials that are used to create that product. In an explanation that you will find in the above references, in terms of knowl, goods are generally worth the same because they derive from the material and that material has fundamental properties, but one needs to read the references. In terms of knowl goods are worth the same, value however is a human determination how much will we pay for a good. Then yes, 5 tons of gold becomes worth more than 5 tons of iron, yes a diamond will be more valuable than water. E = MC² for example would be a point X a law of existence, a nuclear bomb or atomic power station would be a point U, derived from a point X. In no way did those papers ever talk or hint at discussing basics like 5 tons of gold is worth more than 20 grams of gold, it means we have not bothered to read the references, in no way would it make a contradiction like saying 3 knowl is worth more than 2 knowl, a diamond in many instances just for being is worth more than products where a tremendous amount of knowledge has gone into, we are not yet understanding knowledge, a wiki, a wiki can be anything, some are knowledge some just plain history and information some relevant some irrelevant, a wiki is an encyclopedia, a mix of stuff, the two do not seem like competitive products.

To then say that somehow Bhekuzulu discussed such issues in his papers like 1 ton of gold is worth more than 20 grams of gold shows that we did not read we are actually telling lies. But then in our society we value culture like Survival, the Apprentice, get ahead at any cost, win an argument at any cost, lie, cheat, look at the ratings of the reality shows, keep our enemies down at any cost, because they might come in the way if we tell the truth. When will we learn to tell the truth, then we say Bush is bad for leading us to IRAQ to search for WMD when in reality we are all the same in getting our goals, a product of our civilization

Even with clear evidence where a concept comes from we can not deny, that is why we should be glad for the internet, breaking down the barriers, but if we behave the same with the internet, then mankind is no better off as the same evils will persist. The question is so what if Bhekuzulu Khumalo was the originator of a unit of knowledge, taking it far from concept, and explaining knowledge in detail and showing how it is a powerful economic tool, coincidence, my foot. Read the references provided, why fear.This confuses no reader, it merely enrages those who are prejudice, nobody gets confused. (Paul James Smith (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I have to admit I did not understand much of what you wrote here. I read it three times. It seems like you're trying to make several points at once and it's confusing. I'll try to address the relevant issues and ignore the personal attacks. Contrary to what you believe, I did read the original reference you placed in the knol article, and paid specific attention to the motivation behind the definition of knowls. It may very well be that your understanding of the theories there in far surpasses mine, and I'll admit I'm no big expert in economics, and know little about economic theories altogether. But that really does not matter, as the topic in question is in no way economic, no matter how you look at it. Google does not claim that each page would have the same value if each page is a knol representing a unit of knowledge, as you say. Even if Google did claim that, it's irrelevant. An connection between Google's knol and amounts of materials, scientific equations and value is contrived. While I'm certain Bhekuzulu Khumalo deserves to be praised in the highest acclaim, his theories are irrelevant to understanding the knol project. I'm sure that any reader who reads his articles will be greatly enlightened, and have a much deeper understanding of economic theory, but this is not the place to promote them. Someone turning to Wikipedia to learn more about the knol project is not concerned with powerful economic tools, in the theoretic value of knowledge, in the history of the economic evaluation of knowledge, or in who was the first to think of what.

Take a look at all you wrote up there, with equations and existance and mass and point x's. How much does the knol article have in common with that? They are bearly written in the same language. If they were both taught in a University they wouldn't even be in the same faculty. It's a brilliant, wonderful theory, but it's irrelevant to this article, let it go. Start the knowl (unit of knowledge) article instead, enlighten people that way. DuckeJ (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All I said is that a Unit of Knowledge was first defined by Bhekuzulu Khumalo, what is hurting you, you do not believe people have a right to know who thought of a unit of knowledger but when a weight thinks of a unit they have a right to know that Watts come from James Watt, but a watt equals a joule, joule lost favor, this has nothing to do with the prject merely where a unit of knowledge comes from, why are you in pain, that Bhekuzulu Khumalo thought of a unit of knowledge before Google, why are you hurt personally, are you Larry Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul James Smith (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not in pain, afraid, scared, jealous, in awe, or in denial. But my own personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant. I am not against this because of a personal issue I have with Bhekuzulu Khumalo. I'm against this because it is irrelevant to this artcile. I am not denying that the economic definition of a unit of knowledge was first defined by Bhekuzulu Khumalo. I could care less who first did. What I am denying is it's relevancy to this article: this is not like joules and watts, its not like pounds and kilograms. Those are units of the same thing, they are also all part of the same world; the physics world. But in this case you have one unit from the world of economics, and a second thing which is not even a unit, its a name of an internet project. There is no reason to mention one in an article about the other. Are you claiming that the knol article should be in the economic portal? Are you claiming that the term knowl is an internet buzzword? DuckeJ (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us look at the word denial, using www.dictionary.com, it originates from the word deny. Looking further the word deny orginates from the French word denier which comes from the Latin concept of denegare that meant say no. as you can see here, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deny. Concepts and words usually come from somewhere, just looking dictionary I know where the word denial comes from, it comes the Latin concept meaning say no. Weight is a concept that comes from physics, I weigh 82 kilograms, but this has changed from the original physical meaning that had to do with gravitational pull on mass. Note if I am interested the disctionary tells me where the word originated from, more importantly where the concept originated from. to deny, originally came from the latin word that meant say no. weight was first a concept in physics, used everyday, that the unit of knowledge as a concept, no matter if turned into the name of a space ship, or an internet project or a star,the concept came from Bhekuzulu Khumalo, that concept of a unit of knowledge, what ever you turn it into, the concept a unit of knowledge originates from Bhekuzulu Khumalo, we can just say no as in Roman times, but it cannot be denied with evidence, it is a unit of knowledge, be it used in economics, physics, epistemology, general talk, sociology, the concept a unit of knowledge comes from Bhekuzulu Khumalo, if that is difficult to accept do not say it is a unit of knowledge, call it a reference, a knowledge page, knowledge center, but do not say it is a unit of knowledge if when explained where a unit of knowledge comes from it can not be accepted were that concept comes from But knol has been called a unit of knowledge, I assure you the mob is fickle, though it might make google a ton of money, those who advocated that knowledge should have it's own units will also gain, because now probably it is easier to understand knowledge and its behavior, but still what is the big deal by letting people know where a concept originated. Quoting John McCain, "Liberty is something worth fighting for", what is the greatest liberty than to be allowed to think, is it still liberty when somebody takes an unpopular move like saying knowledge must have its own unit, how can it have its own unit, it can not be felt like love, it canm not be felt, smelt, seen except maybe in book form, the having taken such a risk, we deny where the concept came from. It was a pleasure discussing with you. Paul James Smith (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I commented that this discussion was spam earlier because this article is not about the word Knol. This article is about Google's upcoming "online encyclopedia" which hasn't officially been named yet. So, discussion about the *word* Knol, its origins, etc, is irrelevant. -- 125.60.248.139 (Sinebot! don't touch my signature you sig vandal! )

This is strictly a racial issue. When people tell lies about racial capabilities to suite their own needs as one can find here, http://www.nutri.com/wn/gp.html one realises that indeed this is not spam, just a black who said but hey I was the first guy to unitize knowledge, but because society has said blacks are to be janitors, carry heavy loads, not think original thought but follow thought from whites and Jews who claim to be the more intelligent, to accept it is Bhekuzulu Khumalo means that IQ tests are mostly lies and that we are actually not more intelligent than others, hence to justify our superior roles it is best to take from any black who thinks and when they stand up say, that is irrelevant, that is just spam, anyhow what business does a Bhekuzulu Khumalo have in been better than a white or a Jew, who is going to be the Janitor, that is all what this is about, I assure you if Bhekuzulu Khumalo was John Summehill or Peter Jewison everybody would be happy to say the concept comes from such a person. Note that though irrelevant to the concept of knol, including Nicholas Carr is not considered spam for some comment he made, or Jeff Chester or Wolfgang Hansson, why because it is a racial issue. If one can say a comment by Nicholass Carr is more relevant than the origins of the word it is insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.203.141 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevance?

Does anybody know if Knol will follow Wikipedia's beliefs on Notability, where an article must be considered relevant to the general population in order for it to stay open? --Is this fact...? 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) google has a habit of improving on others ideas and Knol might be that.Wikipedia uses unknown editors judges so as to keep the votation secret like a trail like an election..however in the world of information not just facts we need to KNOW the source .even in a trial everybody knows the witnesses testimony is cross examined but in wikipedia its one secret guy who decides. wiki can open this door and allow more participation not just here in the discussion but in the article page which is searchable. google can start searching wiki discussion pages like this as well..and wiki can become a search engine like google. In murcia spain all schools rely on wiki and google in every class. Learning doesnt comes with an OFF button in murcia public schools steven marcus cp san pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.17.233 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically you're asking if there can be a knol on any topic, like "About your day at school"? Although the question is not really covered in the article, it is in the reference section of the article in the first source. I have highlighted it for you here [5] in which it says “Google Knol is designed to allow anyone to create a page on ANY topic, which others can comment on, rate, and contribute to if the primary author allows". I actually don't see this information anywhere else other than the reference section and think it should be added into the body of the article somewhere. So there not doing the whole notability thing that Wikipedia does. Interesting! BicMacDad18 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)