When writing an article about a website, it helps to cite the correct URL. There is no "google.knol.com". The site cited is at http://knol.google.com.

There is a "knol.com" but it is occupied by some rather pissed-off-at-Google Germanic types whose only line of English on their homepage is: "NOTE: We sell steamcleaning equipment and don't sell our domain !!"

Bill

CB, thanks for catching my typo - they've fixed it to show the correct URL: knol.google.com. Thanks again! --Joe Hutsko

I think Ad click revenue is only a part of what Google is doing with Knol. Unlike Wikipedia, it names authors, which enhances the credibility of the information and makes rigorous verification easier. The real point of this, however, is that it makes contributing more appealing both to serious authors and to institutions and commercial publishers who are sitting on huge, underutilized archives of high quality information that can be difficult to find in a general search. Contributing to Wikipedia is noble but completely altruistic. Contributing the same information to Knol carries with it the chance for good page rankings, good exposure, and plentiful, traffic-building links to other sites the author might feel are useful - like their own archive, product manufacturers and so on. For instance, think of all the Scientific American articles that could be cut and pasted at almost no cost into the Knol template and then linked to all their other articles on the subject. I think Knol is a platform with possibilities beyond ad clicks, which makes it worth watching.

...well said, constructivedisorder. And yes, Knol is absolutely worth watching for all of the reasons you point out - particularly the fallout/legal ramifications if/when contributors copy and paste copyrighted material to which they have no right to publish/claim as their own.

... to volunteer to write the Knol articles for "sexy teen nudes" and "free online poker." I'm ready for the page-click cash to roll in :)

Why so hard on something that just started. Knol is a good idea; it addresses the main problems w/ Wikipedia: a total lack of accountability and extremely uneven, poorly organized articles. Every time i see someone site Wikipedia as a source I want to light myself on fire.