Talk:Knowledge Engine
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by KSmith (WMF) in topic What should become of this page?
- see also Knowledge Engine/FAQ (defunct)
- see also Wikimedia Discovery/FAQ for what actually became of this
What should become of this page?
[edit]I started this page, based on an extensive comment former Wikimedia Executive Director Lila Tretikov put on her user talk page. I never really intended that to be the total of this page -- ideally, this should document what the term "Knowledge Engine" has meant at various times throughout its history. So...how do we get there?
I'm thinking this page could be very short, mainly featuring links to other pages. Thought? Jytdog? -Pete F (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know. I agree that what is here, is not very helpful. What I would like is for someone to disclose the actual story of what went on with the Knowledge Engine from its inception, to the planning that went on and $35M-over-several-years budget that was discussed, what was pitched to the Knight Foundation, how the published 3 year Discovery plan fits in, and what of all that remains in play today. There is a narrative there, that can be told. This would be an ideal place to do it, and there must be people within the WMF who know the story. I left a similar message requesting disclosure of the story here at the FAQ page for Discovery, for CKoerner (WMF). (can I just say that I am super happy about the cross-domain notifications? SO GREAT). Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure nobody is capable of writing that narrative. Lila might be closest, but I doubt even she would have the whole story. It would have to be a collaborative effort of a lot of people (mostly staff). Which would take a lot of time, translating to a lot of salary money. Would it be worth doing? I don't know. Most of the information is already out there in some form--it's just not assembled in one coherent place. I'm inclined to think that we can (and should) learn our lessons from all of this from what we already have. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- KSmith (WMF) thanks for answering and I mean that. I find it a bit weird that you find a collaborative effort to write something daunting... it is what the edit community does every day in WP. :) Um, but I would imagine that the higher one goes in the hierarchy, the more one pieces of the puzzle one would have. I reckon User:WMoran (WMF) would be able to contribute a lot to such a narrative. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Collaborative efforts are not daunting if the contributors are all motivated and available. In this case, the motivation would presumably be "we're paying you to do this as part of your job", which implies donor dollar costs. That's the main tradeoff I see. If "we" (whoever that is) decide this is really important, and therefore worth the expense, it's certainly doable (minus Lila's input, presumably). --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- KSmith (WMF) thanks for answering and I mean that. I find it a bit weird that you find a collaborative effort to write something daunting... it is what the edit community does every day in WP. :) Um, but I would imagine that the higher one goes in the hierarchy, the more one pieces of the puzzle one would have. I reckon User:WMoran (WMF) would be able to contribute a lot to such a narrative. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure nobody is capable of writing that narrative. Lila might be closest, but I doubt even she would have the whole story. It would have to be a collaborative effort of a lot of people (mostly staff). Which would take a lot of time, translating to a lot of salary money. Would it be worth doing? I don't know. Most of the information is already out there in some form--it's just not assembled in one coherent place. I'm inclined to think that we can (and should) learn our lessons from all of this from what we already have. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)