Talk:Google announces testing of online reference tool

"However, Google suggested a difference will be that the authors of articles are to be highlighted, as opposed to hosting submissions by anonymous users." &mdash; What does that mean, will each page have a byline. and anons don't get to have any fun? Or will the authors just be listed in a history tab like 'pedia, and anon editing disabled. (will they even have editing, or will this just be a one person submits something, and google displays that article on their knowledge base without allowing others to modify unless they totally replace it). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bawolff. You're right, that wasn't clear. I edited that section and added more info. Hope that works. Cheers, Jcart1534 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Highlight Authors
In Udi Manbers post he devotes an entire paragraph to the notion of authorship. He starts with this notion, stating that the "key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors"; this is a main point of difference from online encyclopedias like Wikipedia. You trust the content of wikipeida because you trust that many people have gone over the article and at least some have actually checked the references: wikipedias authority comes from the community and from the many eyes that each article has. In this project the authority of the article stem from the reputation of the author, like Udi Manber wrote in the post. This wikinews article has decided to completely ignore this point, resorting only to state that the articles will be "written by users", and emphasizing mainly on the points of similarity of knols with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.0.58 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed this?: "All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors," continued Manber. "We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line." I don't see how you would characterize it as "completely ignored". This is a news article, not a reprint of a press release. --Jcart1534 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is an important difference between saying that one of the important aspects of the project is highlighting certified authors and saying that the articles authority stems from the reputation of the author, and placing in the end of a paragraph on editing, at the end of a sentence that is concerned with the POV of the author that they "will put their reputation on the line". This is saying that reputation and authorship, which Udi Manber says is a 'key idea' deserves much less attention and is a side point in comparison with POV and editing rights. 212.179.82.69 12:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)