And as far as I gather from what I’ve read about Knols, they don’t intend to be an encyclopedia, making the last few comments strange. In particular, the information is more advice/howto-oriented rather than dry fact; and numerous articles may appear on one topic, with darwinistic survival to negotiate between their relative successes.

He was called away to work on a GP1. He says the REAL name of the project is “Google’s Universal Encyclopedia” or “Uni Pedia”.

Just thought you should know.

According to some sources, the actual name is “Unipedia”

Sounds like a better name than “knol”.

I quite like the idea that Unipedia will share revenue of any ads with the authors.

But yeah, my own early thoughts tend to be along the lines of… Though I am pretty dubious about the propensity of the collaborative process to tend towards a neutral point of view, I’d still probably trust it more than the exclusive viewpoint of one author, at least/especially when I’m sufficiently unfamiliar with the subject matter that I don’t have any idea who, exactly, the author is. As such, I don’t see Knol playing much of a role in my own… Research, if you will.

If I want basic, entry-level information about a subject, I’ll probably stick to Wikipedia, both because of the NPoV issue, and… Because of my slight bias towards sites that don’t sport advertising. If I want more detailed, expertly-written information about some area I’m already slightly familiar with, then I probably already have other sources that I pretty much trust, like the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Still, who knows, I’d probably have to actually read some of these knols before I really get a feel for them.