I suggest changing the title to "death knell for Wikipedia?"; people will still get the Knol-knell connection.--ragesoss (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think both spellings, with 'e' and 'o' are both ok? Or are you just saying that the title is just a little too obvious? enochlau (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been thoughtful comments on this by wikipedian bloggers: [1], [2] and [3]. Circeus (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll link to those. (I know David is a Wikipedian, but I'll trust you on that the other two are also Wikipedians!) enochlau (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other two are User:Nzgabriel and User:Cohesion, respectively. Circeus (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I overhauled it quite a bit; traditionally, the Signpost's tried to stay more NPOV, and just report the facts of the situation. While I can see the merit of having some POV, I think for consistency, we shouldn't do so. Ral315 (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (See your talk page.) enochlau (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that there will be no fact checking on any Knols, I don't think their content would be reliable for use in Wikipedia. Corvus cornixtalk 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it been announced what licence it will be published in? CC? GFDL ? (please?) Can Google copyright it if it's user generated? Paragon12321 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Signpost article says Meanwhile, Mathias Schindler noted that a screenshot of the site seemed to indicate that its content may be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, which would allow its usage within other works, potentially including Wikipedia.. Corvus cornixtalk 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]