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 forward.
I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader efforts while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing discussion. Lila On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > + Footnotes. > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> > 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 today: the the grant allows us to pursue >> strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some >> of our hypotheses on how to best do this. >> >> It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, >> integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet >> Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader >> knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have >> since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). >> Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with >> our mission. Our focus is on knowledge. >> >> >> To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the >> Discovery team. This team is also tasked with discovering how to better >> interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact >> of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually >> connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a >> simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem. >> >> I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our >> Wikimedia movement. Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We >> will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path >> accordingly. >> >> Lila >> >> >> >> [1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that >> easier for users of the sites to find >> >> [2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other >> like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources) >> >> [2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge >> >> [3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all >> content included (shops, goods, etc.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin < >> cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the >>> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people >>> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Craig >>> >>> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com >>> > >>> > 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 specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that >>> > easier for users of the sites to find >>> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other >>> > like-minded sources into the mix >>> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) >>> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points? >>> > >>> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of >>> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the >>> reality? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Mike >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lila Tretikov >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* >> > > > > -- > Lila Tretikov > Wikimedia Foundation > > *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* > -- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>