Hi all,

I notice there are a lot of scientology articles growing on Knol, yet not much criticism about it.

http://knol.google.com/k/knol/system/knol/...strict=general#

I imagine any verified author would be subject to a lot of harassment from them. I don't see any flaming there yet.

However, on an NLP search I found this entry:

http://knol.google.com/k/anonymous/the-joe...leu1vattz52m/2#

about

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/ne...j6nlcky7q5vo/2#

It looks likely an NLP author ( Andrew Bradbury ) is airing a grievance about general criticism towards NLP. Searching the critical reviews, the reviewers seem to be different people e.g.:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Develop-Y...e/9780749445584

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/07494...#R109QLNSXXRKKP

It does seem that there is a lot of scope for delusional attacks and fear of harassment on Knol. Its interesting how it always seems to find a way. I still feel that Knol has potential to set up groups of reliable authors, but its going to be a long term evolutionary thing if at all.


Doc



Oh also I found something on Katefan's old userpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katefan0/Talk6#NLP_Page

Interesting old links from WP to Knol

Predictable I suppose

Doc

We'll see how it goes, but my guess is that the harassment potential is no worse In the Arena of Knol than it is On the Street of Society In General.

The BIG DIFF between Knol and Wikipedia is that the former gives a Terms Of Service (TOS) and appears to have every intention and power of enforcing it.

But, as always —

On jugera …

Jon

There's a comment below it now in which "Joe Greenfield" admits that's not his real name, but of course to call him a "virus" is a bit thick...

It might be interesting to see how well the Google folks end up policing their own content - this is the one area (other than sheer size, natch) where they'll probably fall short of WP in the short term, in that they might not be able to hire enough people to deal with an overwhelming avalanche of petty revenge-grabbing. We can probably expect more of it, too, once people get wind of how well the knols rank on Google searches.

On Wikipedia, people still have to be subtle about revenge-grabbing, because there are enough good people left to remove anything obvious, and anything brought to their attention. That will change eventually, as they experience further attrition of responsible/decent/mature types... But the Google folks are presumably relying on what? Google employees? "Trusted users"? That might work in the initial-adoption phase, but it obviously won't scale, especially in the long term - if anything, it could get worse than Wikipedia if it grows too fast.

Right now, the only thing the average person can do about stuff like that is use the "Report inappropriate content" link. A small support staff could get overwhelmed with those too, very easily.

I think the trusted user issue may be handled to some extent through the natural links that reliable authors use between authors. A good author will likely be able to find the most reliable articles of a particular subject. I imagine remaining anonymous might actually be a sensible idea for a while at least if you are going to write anything authoritative about anything of interest to a particular group on the web.

Doc

A really good proponent of NLP would be able to 'convince' everyone he/she was right.

Just kidding. In my experience, NLP is the domain of persons who think they are above psychology for themselves (after all, only crazy people get psychoanalyzed, or "therapized", or whatever you call it), so the only use of psychology (as they see it) is as a tool to manipulate others.

This point of view has a big glaring hole in it. Namely that the persons making this presumption don't see themselves objectively (because no one ever does) and the render themselves vulnerable by seeing themselves above psychological analysis (which no one is).

In short: they think they are too clever (perfect, etc) to be the subject of a psychological study, and think that psychology is only useful for manipulating persons by them (the clever, perfect ones). Which means that they don't look at the full information. Because some of it is about them. And they are above "all that". Ahem.