Kevin, Those were quotes from the current WMF documentation explaining the Discovery project and its underlying strategy. I linked the sources in my post.
Federated open data sources and Kindle are mentioned here: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADiscovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf&page=9 That slide show is part of the current Discovery FAQ here: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ&oldid=2061227#What_does_your_overall_strategy_look_like_.3F Public (volunteer-based) curation of relevance is mentioned here: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Discovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf&page=12 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Discovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf&page=16 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ&oldid=2061227#What_does_your_overall_strategy_look_like_.3F https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Discovery/RFC&oldid=2040196#Public_Curation_of_Relevance It's about the long-term strategy, not what is covered by the $250,000 grant. The grant is expressly restricted to Stage 1 – even though the grant agreement provides descriptions of the subsequent stages which still tally substantially with what's outlined on the pages linked above. If you're telling me that those pages are out of date as well, then I'll take note of that. My impression was they reflected current thinking. Andreas On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Kevin Smith <ksm...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I think some people aren't realizing the difference between the leaked > presentation (which outlined a general search engine) and the actual grant. > The former was just an idea, while the latter is official. By my reading, > the grant clearly is NOT for a general internet search engine, although it > (unfortunately) did retain a bit of the language from earlier documents. > > Also, I think I disagree with this statement: > > > It envisages a volunteer-curated search engine drawing on a whole host of > > sources from within and outside of the Wikimedia universe, with output > > vectors including "Mobile", "API", "Kindle" and "Apps". > > > > This is part of the overall strategy to this day. Consultation would > really > > be appropriate here. > > The only "volunteer curation" I see in the actual grant can be covered by > the curation of Wikidata that volunteers are already doing. I don't see > anything in the grant that relies on volunteers signing up for additional > work. > > To my knowledge, drawing on non-Wikimedia sources is still in the > "strategy" (or more accurately the roadmap) in two ways: 1) OpenStreetMap > data is already being used in limited ways, and 2) other free information > sources are only being considered in a vague "maybe someday but not this > year" way. > > I don't recall hearing of any plans for Kindle support, but we do already > support APIs and mobile apps, and will (presumably) continue to expand > both. If Kindle support were considered at some point (past or future), > that wouldn't seem like a radical step to me. > > I say all of this as someone who works closely with the Discovery team. If > I'm mistaken on any of the facts, please let me know. > > > > Kevin Smith > Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:41 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > James had gotten, from somewhere, the idea that there really was a > > > secret project to build a Google-competing search engine. We had a > > > discussion where I told him that wasn't right. We had further > > > discussions at the board level of what it means, and eventually James > > > himself made the motion to approve the Knight grant, and voted in favor > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > Jimmy, this is something I find disturbing. > > > > In October 2015 James opposed accepting the grant application because of > > the lack of clarity and transparency around it. [1] But on 7 November he > > not only formally supported its acceptance, but actually proposed it to > the > > Board. [2] > > > > James has written that he did this "following pressure which included > > comments about potentially removing members of the Board." [3] He wrote: > > "Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during > > the days before the Knight grant vote. I believed that my opposing at > that > > point in time would have changed nothing (because there were not enough > > opposing votes to block it), and doing so would have led to my removal." > > [4] > > > > After his removal, you used that he had proposed accepting the grant to > > show that he was being inconsistent. You later called it a "flat out lie" > > that any board member had put pressure on him. [5] > > > > James is an honest and independent-minded person. If he says he acted > under > > pressure, he did. That doesn't mean anyone intended him to feel that way, > > of course. But please say whether you said anything about removing board > > members during, or in the days leading up to, that meeting. > > > > If James did feel so much pressure that he acted against his own views, > it > > raises the question of whether other trustees have been similarly > affected, > > now or in the past. When we elect trustees, we need to know that they're > > going to make their own decisions. > > > > This is one of the many reasons we need all the emails to be released, as > > well as all documentation around the Knowledge Engine and Knight grant. > > > > Sarah > > > > [1] > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus > > > > [2] > > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07#Knight_Foundation_Grant > > > > [3] > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus > > > > [4] > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=prev&oldid=704867811 > > > > [5] > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=704228495 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
