I really don't get Knol. It is a site that hosts many articles written in various subjects. The idea is that only the author has the right to modify the article. Granted, other people can rate and comment articles. They can even write their own versions of the article. But still, all articles are based on someone's viewpoint, or even worse, opinion. Does rating and commenting the articles give enough peer reviewing? In my opinion, Wikipedia's approach makes more sense. In Knol, 1+1+1=3, but in Wikipedia, 1+1+1=4.