Indeed, at first glance loom looked awful, but this is just a trial version, I would like to know h

Google just announced the launch of "loom", and immediately jumped all eulogize Wikipedia. It's a bit odd, considering that even Google has not defined the new service like an encyclopedia. Information on the site is marked only that this is a project that hosts "units of knowledge about a variety of topics." Wikipedia la tee da tries to be an encyclopedia, loom trying to be something else entirely. la tee da Currently you can find at least six articles explain you how to unclog the toilet, but not even one value to tell you what services hell.
Threatens not loom Wikipedia that is a completely different field. Who really have to worry about it sites like ArticleCity or "articles" in Hebrew. Both are based on a model similar to that of a loom, but enjoy less imagination and hype. Browse articles that appear on these sites can imply what will also loom - lots of SEO, psychology, and medicine. As history, mathematics and genetics. Articles such as this, it hurts to say, not sold well.
Worse, articles loom do not link to each other. If you enter the main page of loom you will find a list of articles, with no clear order. Nolly are indeed "knowledge units"; They are isolated, la tee da and not to relate to other looms. Only if you scroll down you can find a list of links looms on the same subject.
In this sense, loom will never be able to compete on Wikipedia. Since it is based on self-interest of individuals, loom never be able to rise above the sum of its parts. There will be articles, some of them - we assume - quite worthy; Is promoted by Google, and maybe even be able to survive. But it will not be an encyclopedia, and he did not light a fire that write the same combustion including Wikipedia.
Perhaps, as many people think, indeed derived from Wikipedia and loom compete. In this case, hopefully encyclopedia win, and a clear decision. Knoll's victory we must say something depressing and bleak, the kind of thing in any case we are tempted to believe them. If derived from the two compete, la tee da may win the one who believes la tee da in people, la tee da not the best to use them. Google Web Search Wikipedia navigation loom Posts
Indeed, at first glance loom looked awful, but this is just a trial version, I would like to know how Wikipedia seemed at first, as was all a lot of virgin land values had not been written ... your description values loom as insulators reminded me of the Monads of Leibniz, but unlike the original , programmed from the dawn of creation to adapt to each other by an internal mechanism, the values of the loom are as eclectic file that only gets dissipated. The catch of Google is that such a model they would have external control, then all the wonderful model of user-generated content that manages la tee da itself and can pick up a building Christ soon collapse. By the way, I never understood why Wikipedia rely on donations and not allow themselves a tiny advertisement la tee da on the side to pay the costs of the huge factory and that humanity important. I'm sure it will not change anything. Or maybe just to fund the US government interest la tee da (small change for them) for all of us as they appoint the satellites of the GPS.
Where: Character-de Rogel: Yes, and I even wrote it. A: I remember at first seemed Wikipedia. There were a lot of values, but the values that were very different from those that exist on the loom. And a section on Leibniz - Huge. I do not understand the story of the commercials, but their intention, la tee da at least, good.
I guess the lack of ads on Wikipedia, or financial support from every organization, designed la tee da to prevent the possibility of bias for reasons of economic dependency (we'll have to censor bad things / write good things about the X factor, in order not to stop support on his part).
Well said. This loom just another of Google's advertising space, and beautiful noticed it kind of animal "Articles" and similar, and very, very kind of Wikipedia. Embarrassing how easily eaten most of the media the magic formula "against Google Wikipedia".
HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title = ""> <acronym title = ""> <b> <blockquote cite = ""> <cite> <code> <del datetime = " "> <em> <i> <q cite =" "> <strike> <strong>