wikipedia

Tagipedia - a Wikipedia for Tags?

Thinking about Semantic Web, crowdsourcing and mostly after reading a recent blog post from Andy I came to believe that we need a 'Tagipedia' (Wikipedia for tags): a place where anybody can tag any uniquely identified web resource (URL) and thus gradually, collaboratively describe the entire Web in more semantically sensible way.

Ironically, large social-bookmarking services (e.g. del.icio.us) have enough data to start something like that, but they have not exposed it in a meaningful way, yet. What we really need is an API call that would return top 10 (or 20) most common tags, across all users for a specific URL. Given that all kinds of widgets can be built, including browser-extensions.

Del.icio.us, where art thou? Can you hear us?

Google Knol

Ok, finally Google is starting to make a move against Wikipedia, with the private launch of Google Knol. The specifics of the system are not yet known, but from what we can read between the lines, the interesting difference betwen Knol and Wikipedia is that in Knol content will be authored by a "group of experts" (that will later be able to share ad-revenue with Google for their efforts?).

If this is true, then clearly Google is responding to the long-standing joke (started in the TV show Office) that Wikipedia is reliable "because anybody can edit it". Google must be proud to "have gotten the message"... of all conservatives who refuse to accept Wikipedia.

Good job, Google! Nice swing from a progressive thinking away and into aligning with stagnating conservativism. So, Google does not believe in the Wisdom of Crowds, anymore? And here we thought the whole point James Surowiecki was making was that crowds are always smarter than a bunch of "experts". Ironic, how we are going back to "experts", is not it?

You, my friends, can make "Knols" (What the heck is this with Google people trying to come up with an alternative English, anyway?) as your "the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read.", but I am sticking with Wikipedia. Wiki has been the first entry into a new subject, for me, for a long time now and I am not complaining.

I think Google is just desperately reacting to the unfortunate reality that people now prefer to start research in Wikipedia rather than Google. Desperation is never a good adviros, though and Google seems to be missing the point.

I assess the chances of Knol's success somewhere near that of Google Video and Orkut.

*sigh*

Syndicate content