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>

Reply via email to