Hi Chris, Much as I think that humans can help with searches, the Wikimedia contributor community is far to small to handle the amount of work that we should be doing already. It's conceivable that adding a small amount of work to local RDs or their equivalents could be done with minimal impact, but please let's not (1) encourage readers and searchers to expect a higher level of service than the community is likely to deliver, and/or (2) add significant workloads without also adding the human resources to adequately address them.
Improving the human resource capacity of the contributor community would help a great deal. Unfortunately, repeated efforts to do this over the years have failed. While there are more ideas in the pipeline, I'm not optimistic that we will see significant increases in capacity in the foreseeable future. If WMF wants to add paid staff to answer RD-type questions from the public, that might solve the human resources problem with your proposal, but my feeling is that the money would be better spent elsewhere. Pine On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Chris Koerner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Crazy, not very well thought out idea, but what if we link searches with >> less than 3 results to the local equivalent of the Wikipedia Reference >> desk. :) [0] "Can't find what you're looking for? Ask for help." >> > > But then we're dropping readers into a part of Wikipedia they probably > never dreamed of with no warning. And we're asking them to write > wikimarkup, and unless they're signed in they won't know that their > question has been answered. And of course we're exposing the Reference Desk > to a flood of poorly-articulated questions. > > Former features like the Article Feedback Tool and MoodBar were designed > to handle questions from readers and newcomers in a way that was manageable > for the questioner and answerer (I'm not saying they worked perfectly or > even well, but that's what they were for). Until we have an interface that > makes it easy to ask reference questions and answer them, and works at > scale, I don't think shunting them to the Reference Desk is the answer. > > Although I will say I like where you're going. Wikipedia is too big and > too idiosyncratic for us to ever have perfect search, and leveraging the > expertise of the editing community, if they're interested, seems like a > productive direction. > > - J > > >> >> How can we pair up the smart search and emerging AIs with the pretty darn >> good resourcefulness of other humans? Even if you're a little cold on this >> idea, it would be a small stop gap until the (hopefully altruistic) AI's >> appear. :) >> >> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk >> >> Inspired by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_a_Librarian >> >> Yours, >> Chris Koerner >> Community Liaison >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I do! When it seems readable and useful, and I know that it exists. And >>> when I have something riding on the outcome. - J >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Deborah Tankersley < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Detailed, readable documentation (which is accessible directly from the >>>>> search interface) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yup, totally agree. But, in real life, who reads the documentation >>>> anyway? ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> deb tankersley >>>> irc: debt >>>> Product Manager, Discovery >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Morgan < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When I read this article, I wasn't struck that the author was saying >>>>> she thought that technology "owed" her particular results. >>>>> >>>>> I think the point she's making is that so much of our life now is >>>>> mediated by algorithms that make choices we may not understand, and that >>>>> impacts how we see the world in ways we can't easily anticipate or account >>>>> for (supporting quotes below). And the problem is subtler and more >>>>> pervasive than simply issues of "filter bubbles" and "fake news" that are >>>>> currently garnering the biggest headlines. >>>>> >>>>> This is part of a broader conversation that happening right now around >>>>> algorithmic transparency and "ethical AI". Lots and lots of big names are >>>>> weighing in on the topic[1][2][3][4][5][6]. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't see a whole lot of specific design guidance around how to >>>>> support transparency in the context of search yet, but I'd be interested >>>>> in >>>>> hearing from others who have. Detailed, readable documentation (which is >>>>> accessible directly from the search interface) sounds like a pretty good >>>>> start :) >>>>> >>>>> - Jonathan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *"I am still not accustomed to the drastic ways search algorithms can >>>>> direct people’s lives. We’re so used to Google’s suggested spellings and >>>>> the autocorrect of texting apps that we’ve stopped thinking too hard about >>>>> how we search or how we spell. If I tap out Chrissy but should have typed >>>>> Krissy, I implicitly believe that of course the opaque algorithms of >>>>> Facebook will intuit my intent. But we have no way of probing the limits >>>>> of >>>>> the algorithms that govern our lives.""When we talk about the algorithms >>>>> that drive sites like Google and Facebook, we marvel at their cleverness >>>>> in >>>>> serving us information, or we worry about the ways in which they >>>>> exacerbate >>>>> bias—profiling people based on gross data trends, for example, to decide >>>>> who gets a loan and who doesn’t. But there is a complex web of algorithmic >>>>> life-shaping at work that we barely register. It’s not that I wish >>>>> Facebook >>>>> treated its Cs and Ks alike. It’s that by not knowing the rules, we give >>>>> up >>>>> some agency to mathematical calculations."* >>>>> >>>>> 1. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy >>>>> /2017_usacm_statement_algorithms.pdf >>>>> 2. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908372/the-ftc-is-worried >>>>> -about-algorithmic-transparency-and-you-should-be-too.html >>>>> 3. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/08/theme-7-the-need-gr >>>>> ows-for-algorithmic-literacy-transparency-and-oversight/ >>>>> 4. https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/ >>>>> 5. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603915/tech-giants-gra >>>>> pple-with-the-ethical-concerns-raised-by-the-ai-boom/ >>>>> 6. https://cyber.harvard.edu/research/ai >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Trey Jones <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing, Chris! >>>>>> >>>>>> I found the article a bit frustrating. As a human interest story, >>>>>> it's very touching that the sisters were able to reconnect despite family >>>>>> problems that worked to keep them apart. >>>>>> >>>>>> But from the technology side of things, blaming search algorithms >>>>>> seems odd to me. I'm surprised that anyone would feel that technology >>>>>> owed >>>>>> them particular results or specific capabilities—especially capabilities >>>>>> they didn't even know they needed. That might actually be a useful >>>>>> insight >>>>>> into our own users, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm also surprised the author didn't use anything other than search >>>>>> engines and social media. I've had to track down a dozen or so people who >>>>>> were out of touch for up to 20+ years, for a book project, and there are >>>>>> so >>>>>> many resources out there! Even more if you are able to spend a few >>>>>> dollars >>>>>> per person—which "book project people" did not warrant, but siblings >>>>>> would. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, getting a bit more on-topic, how do we help people by not only >>>>>> providing them with useful information, but also the tools and processes >>>>>> that allow them to get the most from that information? It seems like >>>>>> documentation works for very sophisticated users, but the rest have to >>>>>> collectively and very unevenly accrete familiarity with tools over time; >>>>>> learning/teaching processes seems even more daunting. I can't see a way >>>>>> to >>>>>> accelerate that process, which is disheartening. >>>>>> >>>>>> —Trey >>>>>> >>>>>> Trey Jones >>>>>> Software Engineer, Discovery >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Chris Koerner < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to Erica Litrenta for sharing this with me. I thought I'd >>>>>>> share if forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "It was because of the letter K that I found my younger sister, but >>>>>>> for 14 years, it was also the letter K that kept us apart." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.wired.com/story/search-algorithms-kept-me-from-m >>>>>>> y-sister-for-14-years >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>> Chris Koerner >>>>>>> Community Liaison >>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jonathan T. Morgan >>>>> Senior Design Researcher >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discovery mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan T. Morgan >>> Senior Design Researcher >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discovery mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discovery mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >> >> > > > -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Senior Design Researcher > Wikimedia Foundation > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> > > > _______________________________________________ > discovery mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery > >
_______________________________________________ discovery mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
