Slashdot Mirror
Reluctant Wikipedia Lifts Lid On $2.5M Internet Search Engine Project (theregister.co.uk)
The Wikimedia Foundation has finally disclosed details of its controversial Knowledge Engine grant -- and it confirms that Wikipedia is getting seriously into search, despite Jimmy Wales' categorical denial that WMF is "doing a Google." After a Wikipedia signpost article, and coverage at El Reg this week, the WMF caved and posted the Knight Foundation's approval of the $250,000 grant. The grant provides seed money for stage one of the Knowledge Engine, described as "a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy information on the Internet." The discovery stage includes an exploration of prototypes of future versions of Wikipedia.org which are "open channels" rather than an encyclopedia, analyzing the query-to-content path, and embedding the Wikipedia Knowledge Engine "via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers."
Cool, I look forward to having a search engine primarily full of family guy episodes, anime characters, and a million roads and tiny towns in rural England.
One of Wikipedia's largest problems is that it cites things which cite things which end up citing Wikipedia if you go far enough back.
It would be great to have Wikipedia akin to Wolfram Alpha but less math and more about factual primary sources.
Now they want their turn
I have a severe problem finding useful information on Google right now. Search the title of any song. The results are always 1) 1,000 lyric websites 2) 1,000 shopping websites 3) 10,000 random linkbait blogs that spam you with ads or try to trick you into downloading malware, and 4) A Youtube link and a wiki page if it's popular enough. Sometimes #4 is useful, but often it's not. I find it incredibly difficult to find what real people are saying about a topic when artificially-generated pseudo content puts so much effort into gaming the search.
described as "a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy information on the Internet."
So, Wikipedia isn't going to be the top result for many searches?
Confirming the $250.00 grant, estimated to be worth $2.5 million, Wales admitted, "Yes, we received a $250,000 grant. But we are only spending $2.5 billion of it on search. The other $25 is going to expand our article on the base 10 number system.
Nothing posted to
The short article in the link has this:
Wikimedia’s reluctance to detail the restricted grant, from the Knight Foundation, was a factor in the departure of community-elected WMF board member James Heilman in December.
Whether that's controversial depends on whatever's been going on between the Wikimedia Foundation and Mr Heilman and how you view their motives and attitudes towards openness and those of the Knight Foundation - "Volunteers feel WMF management has purposely kept them out of the loop”. Maybe the bit about embedding the Wikipedia Knowledge Engine “via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers” means they hope for a commercial product, which might be controversial.
Page 2 of the agreement asks "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?"
I expect Google would say it's controversial but that's another matter. Wikimedia intend to create "a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy information on the Internet" which is not Google's main aim: doing a Google would be trying to monopolize search and make as much money as possible.
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is an American private, non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting "transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts."
You might want to keep an eye on their page for favourable edits. Their money came from Knight Ridder publishers. Wikipedia helpfully adds "Not to be confused with Knight Rider (disambiguation) or Night Rider (disambiguation)."
Their Android app doesn't even select the search field when you press the search button (it's a standard Android key code, and it used to be a common physical button back when touchscreen phones still had those) and they want to get into search?
This is why I don't send them money. How's about spending some money to hire some professional mediators to moderate some of these article wars? That would actually be useful and make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You mean this : https://xkcd.com/978/ ?
Several commenters here have suggested that building an alternative to Google, based on values like Wikimedia's, may be a good thing. This is a worthwhile point, and a worthwhile discussion; but it misses the point of what's problematic here.
The problem here, the thing that has many Wikimedians worried, is that Wikimedia trustee Jimmy Wales has apparently been telling outright lies about whether the organization has considered pursuing a search engine to rival Google et al. He has made a number of unequivocal statements in recent weeks -- he himself has accused ousted trustee James Heilman of lying on the subject (but Heilman's narrative is now verified by the published grant application).
https://wikimediafoundation.or...
The thing that has shaken Wikimedia up is not the idea of search, but the question of whether we can expect honest communication from those entrusted with the Wikimedia brand and organization. Beyond that, it's whether that organization in fact wishes for the input of Wikimedia's stakeholders in determining its strategic direction -- something it actively pursued five years ago, but is pursuing only minimally and reluctantly now, with the Knowledge Engine grant as merely the strongest indicator of how its activities fail to align with any strategic document with strong buy-in.
Pete Forsyth
Well said. It's gotten to the point where whenever Wales starts badmouthing people and calling something "utter fucking bullshit" or a "total lie" (as he did in this case), you have to suspect that something very much resembling the exact opposite of what he says is actually true. At the same time, he claimed in those discussions he was "a much stronger advocate of transparency than James [Heilman]", the community representative he and the others had thrown off the Wikimedia board.
The problem with your rant, Pete, is that I have told the absolute truth at every point here. We are not pursuing a search engine to rival Google et al. This grant is not about that type of project, and that type of project would be - quite frankly - ludicrous to attempt on a $250,000 grant.
Discovery at Wikipedia is awful, this is universally understood and acknowledged. This grant is the beginnings of an exploration of how to improve it.
The bullshit - and it is bullshit, and I have said it before and will say it again, that this is some kind of google competitor or was ever conceived to be - is a fantasy based on absolutely no facts of any kind, and a very very very skewed and aggressive reading of a preliminary document.
Wikia