Talk:Knowledge Engine/FAQ

Format

I've split this into sections (Pajz's section, etc), because it was becoming hard to read already. But that doesn't mean that others can't post in that person's section. It just means that that's the section for this person's questions. We can change the headings to "Questions from X" or something else. SarahSV ^talk 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I changed the headings to "Questions from X," but got an edit conflict, and saw ‎ Antanana had reverted with the comment that topic sections would be better. I think sections by topic might be harder to navigate. SarahSV ^talk 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  do you think so? I have always thought that to have a FAQ page you need to collect a bunch of questions people ask frequently :) (see here Grants:PEG/Frequently asked questions). if I had questions about press coverage, I would read the section dealing with that. just reading all sections by users may (soon) take a lot of time... --アンタナナ 22:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding topic sections early on may be restrictive (as things stand it's not even clear what to ask). We need headings soon because of edit conflicts and the difficulty of reading the page without them. Current headings needn't be the final ones. SarahSV ^talk 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer people to indicate main idea(s) of their question(s), but yeah :) having any headings makes sense. "Questions from X" seems to be better than Pajz's section etc --アンタナナ 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we add "Questions from X" for now? Or leave it as it is? SarahSV ^talk 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Questions from X" for now --アンタナナ 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Meaningful headings make much more sense to me, that way we can group by topic and have related questions as subheadings. Questions from X doesn't scale, is hard to navigate and guarantees repetition of threads. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates?

I was hopeful that disclosure of what has gone in the past year or so would be forthcoming. Lila has not responded at the FAQ she started since Feb 18th, per her contribs. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Discovery team minutes

In case anyone missed this in the most recent Signpost: mw:Discovery/2016-02-16_Discussing_Knowledge_Engine_with_Lila. —Ruud 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete this?

This appears to have been abandoned. Should this be deleted? Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It has a useful history. Perhaps it should be just tagged with {{Historical}}? — NickK (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

i am not sure how useful it is except as a record of yet more dodging of questions and spinning, but yes marking it historical would make sense. It would be useful if at some point whatever was up with this gets fully disclosed. The discovery team's FAQ points here and that link should be removed from there. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting, Jytdog, though I agree this page is problematic. The Knowledge Engine has not been entirely abandoned, just the name. There's still a whole team at WMF working on the projects, presumably including the things discussed in the Knight grant, which is still active. Even if some of the more ambitious aspects have now been ruled out, the project is still alive.

It may very well be that the departure of Lila Tretikov changes the nature of the project, and/or changes the way its team and/or Trustees communicate about it. I think it's important that this wiki page be treated as such; if the answers to these questions evolve, that should be reflected here. If any of the answers are now just flat-out wrong, they should be updated accordingly. -Pete F (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This page as it stands has no informational value in my view, and was a PR-driven exercise in spin, dodge, distract. Not a clear disclosure of the KE's story that makes it clear what it was, and what remains in the work that Discovery is doing and working towards. Some new page with actual disclosure would be helpful. Or completely over-writing this. My sense is that whatever Big Picture thing Lila had cooked up is dead. I might be wrong about that. But I have been and am still after disclosure of whatever that Big Picture thing was and how it fits with what is going on now. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
we have a little progress here now. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)