A page created by some dude is just a snapshot in time, and not a living document. Have you recently read an article published in the 80s? 90s? 2003? They sound almost endearingly naive (depending on the author). Things change so rapidly in our society, that a page created on Knol has almost no chance to compete with its comparable Wikipedia entry.
SocialBias on Knol
25 July 2008
7 July 2008
SEO rewards Wikipedia, and well it should. Most searchers who end up there are pretty happy with that result. But as we get further and further into Googleworld, who decides what’s worthy? There’s no right answer, of course. But “no answer” isn’t an answer either.
Seth Godin on Wikipedia
16 June 2008
In social software as in software projects, the human filters sometimes make poor decisions; you can’t have the flexibility and intelligence of humans without their flaws. Using Wikipedia but becoming enraged when your favourite marginal entry is deleted is like going to an art gallery but being enraged that you saw something there you didn’t like. It’s a big waste of time and energy that could better be spent working.
O’Reilly Radar on Human Filters
12 May 2008
As a search tool it is more interesting than useful, shining in only a few, pre-selected cases. The advantages over Google are so minimal and the defects so large that I would never consider using this as my main means of searching Wikipedia, let alone the Web at large. To me this product smells like a tech demo, not a fully-featured product launch, intended to convince someone outside Powerset that they really are producing something amazing.
20 bits on Powerset
8 May 2008
If everyone had the same, high quality data, all of our products would be better for it. To this end, I think we should create a Wikipedia for data: a global database for all of these important data sources to which we all contribute and that anyone can use.
Bret Taylor on Data