Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/In focus







Add links
 









Project page
Talk
 

















Read
View source
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
View source
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | 2016-02-10

The Signpost


In focus

An in-depth look at the newly revealed documents

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByAndreas Kolbe


    A slide from an already-public November 2015 presentation on Discovery by the Wikimedia Foundation


    This week's "special report" discusses three internal documents from the Wikimedia Foundation that shed light on the history of the Knowledge Engine project. Here, we examine each one in depth.

    "April 2 – FINAL – Knight Search Presentation – 04.02.15"

    Related articles

    Knowledge Engine

    WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"
    6 February 2017

    Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails
    24 April 2016

    [UPDATED] WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears
    24 February 2016

    Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov
    17 February 2016

    New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine
    10 February 2016


    More articles

    This is a short, 12-slide presentation arguing that commercial search engines "decide and determine" "how people find information" and "what they find", adding that they "highlight paid results, track users (sic) Internet habits, sell information to marketing firms" and are "biased towards profit over communities".

    Wikipedia, on the other hand, is characterised as follows:

    The presentation concludes with screen mock-ups of what a Wikipedia search engine could look like, highlighting content from Wikivoyage, Openmaps, Fox News, Wikipedia and Wikidata.

    "June 24 Attachment 1 of 2 – Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia"

    Marked "CONFIDENTIAL – DRAFT", this 11-page document addressed to the Knight Foundation has the headline "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia: A Proposal from the Wikimedia Foundation".

    After briefly describing the history and achievements of the Wikipedia project, the document states:

    This is followed by a set of screen mock-ups labeled "Trending", "Multimedia Content", "Smarter Answers" and "Nearby" and an outline of the four stages of the plan:

    There follows a timeline graphic and a more detailed description of these four stages, each comprising an introductory paragraph followed by an average of half a dozen bullet points. The document concludes with the table of costs reproduced on page 9 of the Knowledge Engine grant agreement, appended to which is the following:

    "August 2015 – WMF Submission to Knight"

    The formal grant application, requesting a much reduced $250,000 from the Knight Foundation, summarizes the proposal as follows:

    The remainder of this document is largely reproduced on the latter pages of the grant agreement itself.

    S
    In this issue
  • In focus
  • News and notes
  • In the media
  • Featured content
  • Traffic report
  • Blog
  • + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

    Data sources

    IfFox NewsorTeleSUR have the slightest chance of appearing as data sources of this searching project, I will campaign to stop it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we see the page that recommended pulling in Fox News? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Wikipedia Search April 2015.png --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it's under "United Nations Security Council ... Source: Foxnews". I expect people will want some explanation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Curation

    Regarding "Establish curation process." When I see the WMF talk of "curation" I see them continuing to add more hamster wheels to a cage which already has in excess of a ten-to-one wheel-to-hamster ratio. Get a clue: we can only run on one wheel at a time. Tools which enable us to run more efficiently are what we need. How this "curation process" is likely to pan out: teams of low-paid "curators" in various third-world countries will work tirelessly to push the importance of their sponsors' favored articles and move them to the upper echelons of search results, overwhelming any efforts of independent curators. Either that, or it will only take 12 months to establish an 11-month "curation backlog". Wbm1058 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Asked and Answered

    AtUser talk:Jimbo Wales#Basic question about the scope of the grant I asked the following question:

    "Will whatever does the searching just search things that we control (Wikipedia, Wictionary, Wikidata, Wikibooks, etc.) or will it be searching things that other people control (other websites, for example)?" --Guy Macon

    The reply I got was

    "I recommend reading the actual grant agreement. There is nothing in the deliverables which includes searching things that other people control. Whether or not a fully realized future result would include, as an example, a tool for editors and readers to quickly find results in open access research, etc., is an interesting question (I think it sounds great) but not one which is at all proposed for this first stage. Media reports and trolling suggesting that this is some kind of broad google competitor remain completely and utterly false." --Jimbo Wales

    I followed up with:

    "Jimbo, if things ever change and they start talking about searching sites that the WMF doesn't control, please let me know..." --Guy Macon

    And the response was

    "Sure. We don't have, and won't have, the resources at our disposal to even contemplate a Google/Bing style search engine, and all the talk about that is just that - talk based on nothing. I can envision - but this is not current planned and isn't even in a serious brainstorm yet as far as I know..." . --Jimbo Wales

    I trust Jimbo, based upon ten years of experience dealing with him. If any WMF or Knight foundation documents appear to contradict the above, then either those documents are lying, someone is doing something without Jimbo's knowledge, or someone is reading too much into what are essentially marketing documents and not paying enough attention to the deliverables. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpostislooking for new talent.

    Archives

    Newsroom

    Subscribe

    Suggestions


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus&oldid=1193875864"

    Category: 
    Wikipedia Signpost archives 2016-02
     



    This page was last edited on 6 January 2024, at 02:25 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki