Knol goes live

As I'd wager every single person who reads this blog already knows, [[Google]]'s Knol has gone live. I didn't write about [[Knol]] right away, and I'm kind of glad I didn't, as things have become a bit more clear over time.

I think they got the basics right - let the authors write about whatever they want, pick their own licenses, have their names verified, profit off [[Adsense|Google ads]], and choose between full, moderated, and no collaboration. Within this there are certainly bugs - name verification doesn't seem to work, collaboration is fairly limited, the license choices are inadequate, and verification for Google ads takes a while, but these are fairly minor points. The biggest problem they're going to have to solve is internal linking (and social networking, which can probably be largely solved simultaneously).

Yes, as I'm sure geek after geek was quick to point out when the question of internal linking was raised (and surely it was raised before release), internal linking is possible just like external linking - by simply using the URL of the link. But I'm surprised the folks in charge put up with that answer, because it's so glaringly inadequate. The ease of making internal links is one of the greatest parts of wiki editing, and since it's optional it doesn't seem there's any drawback to it.

Now, granted, designing an internal linking system in Knol is not going to be as easy as internal linking in [[Wikipedia]] (nor in [[Everything2]], as was suggested by [[Wikipedia Blog]]). Unlike Wikipedia, a term (like [[Yahoo]]) will often be the title of multiple articles in Knol. And unlike Everything2, these articles are each displayed at different URLs. But that doesn't mean internal linking can't be done. Obviously any articles written by the primary author can be linked to automatically. And obviously it should be possible to explicitly link to an article by a certain person (think [[Anthony DiPierro/Yahoo|Yahoo]]). But with a little creativity, maybe some social networks can be set up to allow people to link automatically to whatever article was written by someone closest within the author's network. This could provide a much needed incentive for people to accurately rate other authors. You don't have to follow that suggestion, but please, Google, do something. Even linking to a search page would be better than nothing.

Another related problem is the lack of portal pages. But add internal linking, and these will probably form naturally, even without any explicit support.

Yes, I read 5 Mistakes Google made with Knol before writing this, but the point about lack of internal links (as well as the obvious geek response) came to mind immediately upon trying Knol out, and before reading that article. The rest of the mistakes I'd say are either minor bugs or a restatement of the linking problem.

Barrapunto or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Wikipedia

Barrapunto is a Spanish-language Slashdot lookalike, and a literal translation of "slash dot". While doing some research on Gnupedia to try to fix up its inaccurate Wikipedia article, I learned that Gnupedia was first announced on Barrapunto. So that led me to trying to figure out what Barrapunto was. Getting information on Barrapunto in English proved to be a bit tricky, and the best I could easily find was a Google translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. From that I discovered what I considered to be the most important information:

Barrapunto is a Spanish-language Slashdot-like website. The name is derived in the same manner as Slashdot, with the spanish "http://" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra" and http://barrapunto.com" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra-barra-punto-punto-com". Barrapunto runs Slash, the open source software used by Slashdot, and materials are published under CC-BY.

I went to create an article for Barrapunto on Wikipedia, but discovered one had already been deleted by Guy Chapman. I went to DRV, and learned that you were supposed to ask the deleter to undelete before listing on DRV, so that's what I did. Guy refused to undelete, but suggested I should recreate the article, which is what I did. Then my recreation was speedied.

It's currently on DRV, and who knows what these idiots are going to do with it from here. I've done some further research, and apparently there are more people who search for Barrapunto than Wikinews, apparently Barrapunto used to be ranked number 86 in the Spanish Alexa, and apparently Barrapunto produces its own Slashdot Effect, Efecto Barrapunto. I've mentioned it all on DRV, most likely in futility, though.

Yes, the proper response would be to "swear by Zeus to make no further edits to Wikipedia, other than those which give me artistic pleasure and/or please my ego in creating something which pleases me by its very existence, for its own sake" and to "not attempt to change Wikipedia policy by arguments on Wikipedia". Sometimes I forget just how screwed up Wikipedia policies are, though. There's gotta be someone sane there, doesn't there?

UPDATE: Fortunately, sanity seems to have prevailed, and the article has been undeleted. Of course, I can't help but wonder whether or not the undeletion will be overturned due to my violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]. And apparently the version which Mr. Chapman deleted and refused to undelete had been around over two years and undergone 17 changes before his destruction.

Blah blah Slimvirgin redux

OK, maybe that post from yesterday was a bit too cryptic. I was referring to a long-running thread on wikien-l, which I won't even link to in order to spare a few people. Perhaps anyone who doubts that Wikipedia is an MMORPG should take a look, though.

Matthew Brown said of Larry Pieniazek participating on Wikipedia Review: "it's a shifting mess of crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking." Same could, and probably should, be said of Wikipedia, or wikien-l at least.

Blah blah Slimvirgin

Blah blah Slimvirgin blah blah Lar blah blah Wikitumnus. Blah blah Wikipedia Review blah blah Crum blah blah Kelly Martin blah blah Jayjg.

Did I miss anything?

Back from vacation - not much to say

"I think it's pretty well established now that Jimbo is an evil person. I'm starting to wonder the benefit to continuing to find evidence of this view." That was what I wrote to Gregory Kohs in an email about a month ago. Lately I've been thinking the same might be true of the WMF itself.

I recently went on vacation and didn't follow many things Wikipedia while I was away. Now I'm back and find myself bored by these things.

I've also discovered that blogging is a lot harder than ranting on a mailing list. But I'm going to keep trying.

In the mean time, if anyone has a plan to rescue Wikipedia from the evil clutches of the Wikimedia Foundation, please let me know, publicly or privately.