Slashdot Log In
The Knol Hypothesis
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:30 PM
from the forking-wikipedia-in-all-but-name dept.
from the forking-wikipedia-in-all-but-name dept.
Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton sends in his latest, which begins like this and continues behind the link. "When Google's VP of Engineering announced their proposed Knol project, where users can submit articles on different subjects and share in the AdSense revenue from the article pages, he didn't mention "Wikipedia," but practically everyone else did who blogged about it. Here's what I think will happen, if Knol is implemented according to the plan: Even though it won't technically be a "Wikipedia fork," it will quickly become equivalent to one, with a "gold rush" of users copying content from Wikipedia to Knol articles hoping for a piece of the AdSense dollars. But I submit this will be a good thing, especially if bona fide experts in different fields join the gold rush as well and start signing their names to articles that they've vetted."
First, I've been saying for a while that someone should fork Wikipedia and start assigning "ownership" of articles to credentialed experts where possible, so that an article can be cited as a source that has been vetted by a recognized individual, and to guard against vandalism. Citizendium does something like this, but started from the ground up rather than fork Wikipedia. I argued that they should fork as much as possible from Wikipedia (having experts "bless" the content in the process); the project's official reason for not doing this was that authors are more motivated when starting with a clean slate than when taking over someone else's article. True, we all know the energizing feeling of a clean slate compared to the sluggish feeling of taking over a 50%-completed project with all of its flaws and compromises, but the "energizing feeling" often doesn't make up for the advantages of having 50% of the work already done for you (which is, in a nutshell, the only reason people ever finish 50%-completed projects instead of starting over!).
So could some other Wikipedia fork achieve the same thing? Programmer/blogger and Guardian columnist Seth Finkelstein, a frequent Wikipedia critic, has pointed out that other sites such as http://veropedia.com/ have tried to build a "verified" version of Wikipedia. "But," he writes, "it doesn't work for many reasons:
1) Maintenance
2) Nobody knows the site exists, or uses it.
3) Google will kill the site's ranking, because of "duplicate content"
4) Roughly 99% of Wikipedia's value is the Google-rank it has, and sites trying to copy its content don't have — or get — that Google-rank.
All true. But Knol has a shot at solving all of these problems. #1 should be mitigated if users earn money for maintaining articles — and besides, many articles like "Abraham Lincoln" won't need much maintenance anyway. #2 should not be an issue since it's a Google project. #3 and #4 depend on how Google lists Knol pages in its search results. The VP's blog post says only,
"Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results. We are quite experienced with ranking web pages, and we feel confident that we will be up to the challenge."
Of course the question on everyone's minds, not answered directly by those sentences, is whether Knol pages will get any special treatment in search rankings. Google would probably be criticized if they manipulated the results outright. But they might achieve the same result indirectly — for example, having a tab across the top of their search results page for "Knol results," along with the tabs for Web, images, and news. Or if Knol results get killed for "duplicate content," Google might (legitimately) consider this a bug and tweak their duplicate-detection algorithm. Thus Knol would have the same advantage in Google that Microsoft's Media Player has on Windows: The operating system doesn't favor Media Player directly, but compatibility problems with Media Player will always get fixed first (while the RealPlayer people have to watch their programs get broken by Windows upgrades). One way or another, it's pretty certain that Knol results are not going to be "unfindable" on Google.
Now, I'm sure Knol will not formally fork Wikipedia. I wouldn't see any problem with them doing that, but it would be too controversial, after the VP announced it without ever mentioning "Wikipedia," and with Google already dealing with speculation that they're only creating Knol to complete with Wikipedia in their own search results. But with users having cash incentives to copy content from Wikipedia, probably most of the content would get replicated very quickly, and I would be surprised if many users didn't start writing scripts to robo-copy as much content from Wikipedia as possible.
Then you get to the point where experts start improving it. If the first couple of entries on "Physics" are just the robo-copied Wikipedia version, "signed" by users that nobody has ever heard of, this is barely an improvement over the unsigned article on Wikipedia itself. But then only one Physics professor in the entire world has to think it's worth their while to read the standard Wikipedia article, make any necessary corrections, and sign their name to it on Knol — and now you have a version that has been vetted by a credentialed expert, increasing its value many times to people who want to cite it as a source, or who want a higher degree of confidence that it's accurate. (Hopefully Knol will allow authors to confirm their e-mail addresses and display them — in an image, presumably, to stop them being scraped by spammers. This will allow professors to prove that they really have faculty .edu addresses and enhance the credibility of their articles, something I suggested for Citizendium.)
So, some criticisms of Wikipedia would not apply to Knol. Author Nick Carr has written of Wikipedia,
"Certainly, it's useful - I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper."
When I asked if he would recommend Knol for the same purpose, he was more optimistic:
"Probably. Since a Knol would be written by an identifiable person at an identifiable point in time, I don't see why you wouldn't treat it, in doing research, in a similar way that you'd treat, say, an article by that person. Obviously, you'd need to judge the writer's expertise and authority when deciding whether or not to draw on his or her work, which becomes somewhat more problematic where no editorial or peer-review system applies, as in Knol."
This is where I think the value of a professor's .edu e-mail address comes in, which can at least establish a writer's authority in their subject. I asked Seth Finkelstein whether he would recommend Knol in those same circumstances (verified professor's .edu address, etc.), and his take was, "Of course I would, but you loaded the question in a way so as to remove any problem from it." Well, yeah. I just happen to think Knol actually could remove those problems.
Then there was a little-noticed phrase in Google's blog post that suggests another area where Knol could improve over Wikipedia: the inclusion of "how-to-fix-it instructions." Given that people often need how-to instructions a lot more badly than they need encyclopedia articles, it's surprising that there hasn't been an attempt to standardize around a "Wikipedia of how-to's." Perhaps it's because the Web itself actually does pretty well for that — type in the text of some error message, and you'll usually get some hits on support forums where people ran into the same problem. The trouble is that the ranking of search results depends on the popularity of the site, not on whether the thread ended with someone posting a solution to the problem, so you might have to read through a lot of search results to find an answer. And if you're an expert who happens to know how to do or fix something, there's not much incentive for you to post a page about it (even with AdSense ads), because your page will get buried in the search results beneath all the support forums discussing the same question, even if your post is more concise and useful. Some gurus like Dave Taylor and Leo Notenboom have written so many how-to articles that their own sites have risen through the Google rankings, so if they write a how-to article about something, it will get read (which, of course, creates an incentive for them to write more of them). But for a new expert just starting to write how-to articles, it would take a long time to reach that critical mass.
Knol, however, creates an incentive for experts to start posting how-to-fix-it advice and start reaping the rewards right away, since your how-to articles are just as easy to find under a given subject as anyone else's. Your earnings would start out small as you began to write articles, but they would rise in proportion to the number of articles you wrote, and you wouldn't have to slog along writing for no reward like a typical blogger or site creator, hoping to hit "critical mass" some day. You'd find out early on what the reward would be (financial and otherwise) for the work you were doing, and could decide if you wanted to continue.
Actually, the possibility of "instant rewards" does depend on how Knol articles are ranked against each other within a given topic. The Google blog post says, "For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject," and, "Knols will include strong community tools. People will be able to submit comments, questions, edits, additional content, and so on. Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it." Presumably the top-rated articles on a given topic will be displayed first by default, so I'm making the assumption that good articles really will get sorted to the top. But if there are already 50 articles on some topic, even if you know you can write a better one, how do you know it would rise to the top of the pile? If 10 people rate your article a 9, and all the other articles have been rated by 100 people each and got an average rating of a 7, then yours should still be listed as the highest in terms of average rating. But how do you get even those first 10 people to see your article? You could invite your friends, but then how do you stop anyone from gaming the system by inviting their friends and asking them all to rate their article a 10?
I'd written about this in the context of whether Wikia Search might try to solve these problems by allowing users to vote on search results, if they could prevent people from gaming the system. That was basically just me thinking out loud that something like that would be cool, before Wikia Search announced any specifics, and I haven't heard that Wikia is trying anything like that. But now that Google has stated that they will use voting and ranking systems in Knol, the question is how to reward new authors while preventing cheating. I suggested some ideas in an article about how to stop cheating and vote-buying on digg. One idea was that you could have a section on the page that showed people links to different articles at random, so that users couldn't self-select on what articles were shown to them, and if those randomly selected users followed the links and voted on the articles, count only those votes in determining the true "rating" of an article. (This is what HotOrNot does for people's picture ratings.) Even if few people rated those articles, the ratings that were collected, would be representative of real users, and not the horde of friends that you'd sent to rate your article. If that did not prove popular enough, then you could give authors the option to pay random users to rate their articles — as long as there was no way for authors to tie payment to higher ratings, the ratings would average out to reflect the article quality, and could be used to sort articles based on their actual merits.
So, I'd like to think that someone in the Googleplex is reading everything I write, but it's probably just a case where great nerds think alike. I wrote in Feb 07 that I thought Citizendium should allow authors to put their name next to articles, both for the "name up in lights" incentives factor and to enhance the article's credibility, and now Knol is going to do that (not to mention throwing in money as well). The same month I wrote that someone should build a search engine that groups together user-submitted articles under different topics, and provides a means for newly submitted articles to rise through the ranks as a result of user votes, and it sounds like Knol will attempt that too. Then in April 07 I wrote about the ways that you could prevent cheating in such a system, and even though Knol hasn't talked about what they will do to address that problem, they're almost certainly thinking about it, and have probably come up with some of the same ideas.
So let's do a test to find out if Google is reading these articles. There's one area where Wikipedia would beat Knol, and that is that everything on Wikipedia can be redistributed for free. That's something really special, and it's the one part of the Wikipedia hype that I actually buy into. I don't really care that Wikipedia articles were created as part of a "worldwide collaborative effort" unless that helps to achieve the goal of being useful. But Wikipedia, for all its flaws, represents the first time in human history that we have a compendium of a huge amount of human knowledge that can be copied freely, that literally belongs to the world, and because it's duplicated in so many places, it can literally never be taken away. That part of the hype really is true, and is quite heady when you think about it.
Google Knol has not declared this as one of their goals; a Knol article might not be freely distributable. When a proprietary project is hosted on a private site, there's always the risk that the company will pull the plug on it. They probably won't pull off the content offline, but they might shut the service down to stop new content from being added, the way Google did with Google Answers. Yes, Knol authors will retain ownership of their writings, so they could try to regroup and continue the project somewhere else, but it would be a huge mess to try and contact all of the authors and get their permission to copy all of their articles to the new location. As currently planned, Knol doesn't "belong the world," and Google never promised not to take it away.
So, I think that Google Knol should include a feature whereby authors can flag their articles as being freely distributable under the same terms as Wikipedia articles. (Any author who copied an article from Wikipedia and submitted it, would be required to set this flag, because under the terms of "copyleft", you can't copy something that's freely copyable and then try to stop others from copying it!) Then a user who wanted a copylefted, freely distributable article, could limit their search to articles that have this flag set. This would give Knol the best of both worlds: if the author of the top-ranked article did not wish for it to be freely redistributable, then they wouldn't put it on Wikipedia, but they could make it available on Knol, and users could choose either the top-ranked copylefted article or the top-ranked article overall, depending on what they wanted. If the best article on a given subject also happened to be flagged freely distributable, then so much the better.
Maybe the Knol people have had this idea already. But even so, if they end up implementing it, then I'm starting right away on articles about how Google should implement Google Anti-Censorware, Google Site Hijack Prevention, Google Security Compensation, and Google Sergey And Larry Give Bennett Their Airplane.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Behind the Magic of Anti-Censorship Software 40 comments
Regular Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes in to say "The December 1st release of Psiphon has sparked renewed interest in
the various software programs that can help circumvent Internet censorship
in China, Iran, and other censored countries. (Some of this interest
undoubtedly being motivated by the fact that many of these programs also
work for getting around blocking software at work or school.) Have you
ever wanted to understand the science behind these programs, the way that
mathematicians and codebreakers understand the magic behind PGP? If you
loved the mental workout of reading "Applied Cryptography",
have you ever wanted a tutorial to do the same for Psiphon and Tor and
other anti-censorship programs?" The rest of his editorial follows.
[+]
A Wikipedia WIthout Graffiti 290 comments
Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton writes "I'm a Wikipedia junkie. There's nothing more fun than switching back and
forth
between reading about the
history of human
evolution,
and following the latest speculation about the identity of the mysterious
R.A.B. in the Harry
Potter books, and
Wikipedia is the best site to find it all in one place. But as a fan, it's
always been frustrating
for me knowing that Wikipedia could never improve beyond a certain point --
as it becomes more
popular, it becomes more tempting to vandalize, and in turn becomes less
reliable, a point that
many have made
already. That's why
I'm excited that sites like Citizendium are approaching
the same problem with a different model, one that could enable them to
become what Wikipedia
almost was, but which its intrinsic nature kept it from being:
a central, reliable source of freely redistributable information
about almost
anything.
The main difference is that Citizendium articles, after initially being
built up through the same
collaborative process that Wikipedia uses, will go into an editor-approved
stage, at which point
an editor (publicly identifiable on the article's history page)
signs off on the accuracy of the article, and further edits also have to be
approved by an editor."
[+]
Could Open Source Lead to a Meritocratic Search Engine? 148 comments
Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "When Jimmy Wales recently announced the
Search Wikia
project,
an attempt to build an open-source search engine around the user-driven
model
that gave birth to Wikipedia, he said
his goal was to create
"the search engine that changes everything", as he underscored in a
February
5 talk
at New York University. I think it could, although not for the same main
reasons that
Wales has put forth -- I think that for a search engine to be truly
meritocratic would be more of
a revolution than for a search engine to be open-source, although both
would be large steps
forward. Indeed, if a search engine
could be built that really returned results in order of average
desirability
to users, and resisted efforts by companies to "game" the system (even if
everyone knew precisely how the
ranking algorithm worked),
it's hard to overstate how much that would change things both for
businesses and consumers. The key question is whether such an algorithm
could
be created that wouldn't be vulnerable to non-merit-based manipulation.
Regardless of what algorithms may be currently under consideration by
thinkers within
the Wikia company, I want to argue logically for some necessary
properties that such an algorithm should have in order to be effective.
Because if their search engine becomes popular, they will face such huge
efforts
from companies trying to manipulate the search results, that it will make
Wikipedia
vandalism look like a cakewalk." The rest of his essay follows.
[+]
How to Stop Digg-cheating, Forever 217 comments
The following was written by frequent Slashdot editorial contributor Bennett Haselton. He writes "Recently author Annalee
Newitz created
a bit of a stir with the revelation that she had
bought
her way to
the front page of the story-ranking site
Digg.
Since Digg allows any registered user to go to a story's URL and "digg it"
in order to
push it upward through the story-ranking system, it was inevitable that
services like User/Submitter
would come
along, where a Digg user can pay for other users to cast votes to push
their story up
to the top.
User/Submitter says they are currently
backlogged and not
taking new
orders, but they say the service will return and will soon feature services
for
manipulating similar sites like Digg competitor reddit.
Even if the new U/S features are vaporware, it probably won't be long
before other companies
offer similar services.
But it seems like all of these story-ranking sites could prevent the
manipulation by making
one simple change to their voting algorithm."
[+]
IT: Even My Mom Could Hack These Sites 233 comments
Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton's latest story is ready for your consumption. He starts "Recently, as an experiment, I wrote from my Hotmail account to ten
different
hosting companies that were each hosting some of my Web sites, asking for
logins
to change the domain settings.
Even though I never provided any proof that the messages from
the Hotmail account were really coming from me (the address they all had on
file for me was a different one), half of them replied back and gave me the
logins that I needed."
[+]
IT: Bill Gates Should Buy Your Buffer Overruns 196 comments
Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton has written in with his latest essay. He starts "WabiSabiLabi
generated
some
controversy
recently
by announcing their eBay-like site for security researchers to sell
security exploits to the
highest bidder.
But WabiSabiLabi didn't create the black-and-grey market
for security exploits, they merely helped draw attention to it.
There's nothing that companies like Microsoft can do about the black market
where security exploits
sell for tens of thousands of dollars, but there's one obvious thing they
can do to help protect
users: offer to buy up the security vulnerabilities themselves.
If they did that, then the exploits would probably never make it onto a
black-market auction in the first place,
because the "white hat" researchers would have found them and reported them
first.
Thus I think WabiSabiLabi is doing the world a favor,
by shining a spotlight on the black market that thrives when companies
won't pay for security bug reports." Click that magical little read more link below to continue the thought.
[+]
Technology: Knol, the Wikipedia Maybe-Fork? 102 comments
Bennett Haselton contributes the following essay on the consequences of license choice as it applies to sites based on user contributions; read on below for more of his big idea for making Knol a more useful resource.
"Google Knol should allow its writers to publish under a
Creative Commons Share Alike license.
The preceding sentence may not mean much to you, but if you've ever wanted to cite a Wikipedia
article as a source, or simply read a Wikipedia article with some assurance that someone
wasn't pulling your leg with some
creative editing, or if you've wanted to contribute
to Wikipedia but couldn't afford the time unless you received some modest compensation for it,
then the addition of this one simple feature to Knol might make all the difference." (More below.)
[+]
Your Rights Online: Censorship By Glut 391 comments
Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "A 2006 paper by Matthew Salganik, Peter Dodds and Duncan Watts, about the patterns that users follow in choosing and recommending songs to each other on a music download site, may be the key to understanding the most effective form of "censorship" that still exists in mostly-free countries like the US It also explains why your great ideas haven't made you famous, while
lower-wattage bulbs always seem to find a platform to spout off their ideas (and you can keep your smart remarks to yourself)." Read on for the rest of Bennett's take on why the effects of peer ratings on a music download site go a long way towards explaining how good ideas can effectively be "censored" even in a country with no formal political censorship.
[+]
IT: Encryption? What Encryption? 500 comments
Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton writes with his take on the news we discussed early this morning about the UK government's prosecution of two people who refused to disclose their encryption keys:
"Is it possible to write a program that enables you to encrypt files without drawing suspicion upon yourself if anyone ever seizes your computer? No; a program by itself, no matter how perfectly written, couldn't do this because you'd still attract suspicion just for possessing the software. You'd need a social element driving the program's popularity until it gets to the point where people no longer look suspicious just for having the program installed. Here are some theories on how that could happen — but it would be a high bar to clear."
Hit the link below for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
missed something: (Score:5, Interesting)
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
doesn't work (Score:2)
Violates the GFDL (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone can copy Wikipedia, but like the GPL, the result remains open. So anything copied from Wikipedia into Knol, and anything derived therefrom, remains freely copyable, regardless of any terms Google may seek to impose..
Re: (Score:2)
So.. Knol must support the same permissive licence that Wikipedia has if they want to seed Knol with Wikipedia articles, even if they also support other licences for uploaded content.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can copy Wikipedia, but like the GPL, the result remains open. So anything copied from Wikipedia into Knol, and anything derived therefrom, remains freely copyable, regardless of any terms Google may seek to impose..
It would be more accurate to say that it is a copyright violation to copy from Wikipedia to Knol if Knol's copyright provisions are not compatible with Wikipedias. One cannot "infect" Knol just by copying. One can only violate its Terms Of Service and presumably get kicked off when som
Possibility for abuse (Score:2)
The whole Web is now such a Wikipedia, where people give content and try to earn money for people visiting. The only thing left is to mark certain pages on the Internet as "definition" page on particular subject and voila.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, plant the seen of the idea. (Score:2)
They will now!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
big holes in your idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there are all the large amounts of people who do real world research or work but don't have
Re: (Score:2)
all college students, faculty and staff had .edu addresses, as do many other indidivuals that work for places like Hospitals or Doctors offices that are actually owned by a university. Just in the town I work for there are 3 colleges, and two hospitals that are owned by one of those colleges. That's literally thousands of people with .edu email addresses that are not professors.
...which immediately brings us back to the problem of identity on the net. Forget .edu emails -- there is currently no mechanism whatsoever for me to demonstrate that I am actually myself. That I did go to Caltech that I do have a PhD and that I can in fact speak on rocket science. As opposed to the lazy highschooler over there who imagines he cam make up stuff and should have the exact same voice in the internet.
The net as a whole (and wikipedia in particular) have often been called "democratic", since
AdSense revenue is a joke, too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I submit that this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is already slowly happening and I find the increasing number of spots taken up by Google in the search results to be particularly bad for their brand, search results, and image.
I would definitely not like to see a search result on "jumping beans" filled with 1x Google Image Search, 2x Youtube/Google Videos, 2x Google Knol, 1x Google Products, 2x Google News, 2x Google Base.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't news supposed to be about what DID happen, or inevitably WILL happen?
And if you distill this significantly smaller portion of the news down to that which is actually relevant to the reader...that is, things that may truly affect them that they am not already keenly aware of (no point in telling someone about the rain if they're already wet)...then I think the news could be neatly summed up over dinner on one of those little slips of paper found in a fortune cookie.
In fact, that would be a good place for this news.
Wrong Approach? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a better approach would be atomicize knowledge (e.g. "Hugh Hefner shaved his beard on 02/10/08"), make that source a verifiable resource attributable to individual users and then attribute adsense payouts dependent on page counts for ($num_verified_references - $num_unsubstantiated_rumours). You could then retain the successful wiki model for article construction but with greater trust for the facts contained. But then I, sadly, don't work for Google and I'm probably missing something significant.
easy fraud for you (Score:1, Troll)
Slashdot is very cool, pretty, and fun.
Please send add revenue to --Commander Taco [slashdot.org]
Snow Crash (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia plagiarism (Score:1, Insightful)
Wikipedia copyright violations (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wikipedia plagiarism (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is no saint, and there are plenty of problems with regard to inherent bias, POV campaigns, unreliable information and cabal editing - but the one thing that can't be levelled at it as you have done is that it is some "nobody cares about copyright" site, quite the opposite is the case.
Parent
Who has the copyright to the work on Knol? (Score:2)
Vulnerable because of adsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Recent developments regarding Abraham Lincoln (Score:2)
Paid by the word? (Score:1)
Brand dilution continues (Score:5, Interesting)
The only interesting thing about Knol is that it is a new low in Google's continuing brand dilution. Although Google has already spewed out an incoherent product mix, they had previously still retained at least this minor degree of focus: we index and monetize content; we do not create content With Knol, the final clear line in making Google a distinct brand is fuzzed. They don't create content, well, sorta, maybe, they "manage" the creation of content. Of course, you could argue this line was already crossed when they went into the blogging business.
Google now has a full-blown case of the Microsoft Business Disaster Model. This model goes like this:
The most profitable company this year was Exxon-Mobil. A company that has to get its hands dirty and actually move a physical product had higher profits than Microsoft, a company that just thinks up bits that it then distributes, largely electronically. Imagine the profits if Microsoft were to sell off all its huge money losers, retain only enough employees to maintain Windows and Office, and pay out all the profits as dividends. It would be the most incredible stock the market had ever seen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is scary right now; maybe even scarier than mid-90s Microsoft. I remember my more-business-side oriented coworker reading some article along the lines of "Microsoft Wins", that they could do or buy anything any smaller company started, so it was Game Over Man Game Over.
But I see Google being a lot more flexible in what it tries. While Microsoft became a hegemony of the desktop, Google keeps most of its in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what law you think requires this -- presumably investors are paying Google's exorbitant P/E because they expect the company to plow their cash into some Magical Free Lunch-Powered GScheme, not because they expect it back in cash tomorrow. Otherwise they'd be buying a utility stock, or T-bills.
The most profitable company this year...Imagine the profits...It would be the most incredible stock the market
Re: (Score:2)
It's called tax law. When your U.S. corporation makes a profit, it has to either spend it or pay a hefty tax on it. Neither Google nor Microsoft are paying the hefty taxes. They instead earmark the cash for future use. Small corporations are routinely nailed for this and declared to be simply holding companies (and forced to pay the tax). When you get big enough, you can get away with flouting this law, although when the amount is so flagrant as in Microsoft an
Re: (Score:2)
Google now has a full-blown case of the Microsoft Business Disaster Model. This model goes like this:You really should have just stopped before this.
You were doing so well.
The rest of your rant is about Microsoft and has no relevance to Google, though I would like to highlight one thing:
Panic at the thought of actually distributing that cash to shareholders, as the law requires.
Which law is that? Dividends are laid out in a company's Articles of Incorporation &/or are set by the Board of Directors.
P.S. There are only 3 Google stockholders that matter: Dr. Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page. They collectively own >50% of Google stock.
P.P.S. Google doesn't give issue cash dividends and they have no plans to start.
Re: (Score:2)
double efforts (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't have the big "Google" name behind it, and not very many articles, but for all I care, it's Wikipedia done right. Ever since the deletionism and notability nazis have taken over Wikipedia, I'm kind of disillusioned about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Citizendium's deletion and notability policies are actually laxer than Wikipedia's?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One, it does have an intermediate step, "Cold Storage", where articles are moved instead of deleted. The problem with deletion is that it removes everything about an article, including the metadata (history, etc.). That's the exact opposite of what a Wiki is all about.
The notability criterium is a pretty stupid rule anyways, as the massive discussions around most notability deletions show clearly. When the subject is discussion co
Tried that (Score:2)
Intriguing... (Score:2, Funny)
Pulling the plug (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather like the situation at Zeal.com, when they got bought over. Suddenly reams of entries that volunteers had spent a lot of time working on were pulled for apparently spurious reasons - for example, a site that gave incredibly useful information on growing tomatoes hydroponically was pulled because of a jokey throwaway line at the end of one page to the effect of "Of course, all thes
a defensive offensive that will be spammed to heck (Score:2)
Wikipedia is much worse for Google than a popular site in search results that doesn't use AdSense. Increasingly users will bypass Google search to go directly to Wikipedia. In both Firefox and Opera Mini 4 on my phone, I set up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s quick searches; so I can jump directly to the Wikipedia article on any unfamiliar topic or acronym like 'w Tub girl'. I find I use it as much as Google search. The refrain "justfuckinggoogleit.com" is being replaced with "read the da
Wikipedia has no business model (Score:2)
Go for advertising. Buy out books to the public domain, give back some money to wikepedia authors (e.g. give money to proven authors for writing additional articles),
Yes yes, money changes people. Articles may get flawed to get more money. If you think, Wikipedia must stay in
Re: (Score:1)
Otherwise you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no data on how often this happens. I've seen it happen in a large chunk at least once, but I didn't write the det
Re: (Score:2)