Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

The grant application to the Knight Foundation says that the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 is $2.4 million, and that this was approved by the Board of Trustees. [1] I can't find any reference to this in the minutes. Could one of the trustees tell us which meeting approved it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi everyone, As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are also having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

+ Footnotes. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > Hi Mike, > > We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions > raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions > specifically, here is where we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Mike, We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Mike, If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries, especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of "that isn't what is intended at all, obviously". Andreas On Tue, Feb 16,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer > > ---o0o--- > > First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no > need for editors to edit actual article content"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer ---o0o--- First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Amen Thanks, GerardM On 15 February 2016 at 23:36, Leinonen Teemu wrote: > > On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt wrote: > > - Lack of Strategy - > > > > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the > > WMF to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt wrote: > - Lack of Strategy - > > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the > WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that > kind of money. I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it: 1) Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room > for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and > I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably. The notion that search should not be strategic is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lila, The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

gt; > > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800 > > From: l...@wikimedia.org > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and > grant offer? > > > > Hi Gnangarra, > > > > Thank you fo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

with the community consensus. Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code? > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800 > From: l...@wikimedia.org > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant applicati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Gnangarra, Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this. Please expect to see something from us in next few days. Lila On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

FYI making main stream media http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840 On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole wrote: > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say > "advised" you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Thanks for this breakdown of events/intentions/grant request. I can't help wondering whether this grant will produce anything at all that we can use. As I recall we talked a lot about how bad search was in general on Wikipedia projects, and the example used to demonstrate how poor this was, was a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward. Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gerard, I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look! something positive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Actually, you are complaining. I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics. I'd hardly put Pine in that group. The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous. On Fri,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things. I am concerned today that the team specifically

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Anne, regarding: "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount." I'm not sure that the board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices. where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions that others have asked, I'll add a few: 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not mentioned in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16? 2. I realize that as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi All- The funder has agreed to share the Knowledge Engine grant agreement. Here are the links to that document and other relevant communication about the Discovery team's work: 1) Knowledge Engine Grant Agreement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

hi Pine, On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Pine W wrote: > My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that > the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are > hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lisa, thank you. I am getting the sense from the available information about this grant that the Knight Foundation is well intentioned. My concerns here, and I think that the concerns from other community members, are primarily related to WMF's handling of this situation. I for one would be happy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

It was obviously evolving as the project moved from initial conceptualisation to the establishment of the Discovery team but, nevertheless, a clear, meaningful statement of the vision for the project (as it was imagined at the time) would have been appropriate when the team was put together. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive >> Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy? >> To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV wrote: > >> > Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the > Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is > really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should > focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care > about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Pine W wrote: > > I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia > movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy > and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz, Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.) On Thu, Feb 11, 2016

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Thanks for sharing, always interesting to see these processes in detail. On Feb 11, 2016 19:53, "Anthony Cole" > I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the > reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search. > > And I support the ED's right -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" napisał(a): > >> >> > ​Hi ​ > Dariusz, > > ​T​ > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV wrote: > >> >>> >> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the >> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Andreas, et al James' now-released email is quite damning in many aspects. I am very concerned that James was essentially bullied by way of threat into voting in the affirmative by other members of the BoT. James, would you care to name those Trustees who did this? Given the recent Harassment

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue. From the editors: Help wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_the_editors In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Chris, et al Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected? > James was pushing for greater transparency on the BoT. This is the one major issue that arose during James on the board that wasn't transparent at the time. You can put 2 + 2 together from that. > I have heard nothing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote: >> >> >> I have some one question for you. >> >> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant >> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in >> a vote of no-confidence. >> > > Ruslan - what makes you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> > > I have some one question for you. > > I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant > information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in > a vote of no-confidence. > Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected? I have heard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Lila, et al I have some one question for you. I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in a vote of no-confidence. Something just doesn't add up here. Any chance you can publish the actual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one. There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere. Thanks, GerardM On 30 January 2016 at 00:50,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lila Tretikov wrote: >I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much >as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well >as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize >many people a curious about what it actually funds, so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Anthony, I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible. When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig deeper. Since then

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Thank you Lila. That's very clear, and I think it's a worthwhile project, exactly in line with our shared vision. Anthony Cole On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia > with an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote: ... > So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to > the community in response to criticism? > > Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian > chutzpah, or what?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Thanks, Anthony. As can be seen from the diff, the discussion at the time went like this: ---o0o--- Given the history, but also the absolute bungling mess and total lack of professionalism that the board has shown since these events, you will find, Jimbo, that there is a significant proportion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Since Jimmy is now also on the board for 'The Guardian', maybe its about time he stepped down from the WMF board? And regarding James, it honestly no longer matters why he was 'fired', its obvious the board is filling up its stocks in google employees (lol) and it won't likely change even after

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

My guess is that the first step here is to identify who would have access to the Knight Foundation grant application and grant offer paperwork. It's not immediately clear to me who to even ask about this. I'm copying Wes Moran and Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation on this reply, as he

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

MZMcBride wrote: >Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to >release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you >know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate >contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

MZMcBride, that is an *excellent* find -- I had forgotten that it was articulated as a formal policy. I have now updated my blog post on the topic with a link to that email: http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded? -Pete