8 ms·

Wikimedia Foundation director resigns after uproar over “Knowledge Engine”

68 points by timemachine 11y ago

booop 11y ago
Good riddance. Everything about her has been a disaster. From her single edit history to her statement that she was afraid to address the community. She even has her name on a damn SOFTWARE PATENT. What were they thinking when they put her in charge?
- hyperpape 11y ago
  If you have a list of programming heros, it would be a nice exercise to find out how many of them have their names on a software patent. Probably quite a few of them. I don't like software patents, but having your name on one isn't the same as being a patent troll.
- xlayn 11y ago
  If she has a software patent, it could mean she understands how the system works, you wouldn't hire a lawyer who doesn't have a title, on the other hand, one that has written a law would appear more knowledgeable. What I suspect is the problem is this "The Board tasked me with making changes to serve the next generation and ensure our impact in the future," I would suspect if this is not political correct wording for "let's make money".
  - booop 11y ago
    > If she has a software patent, it could mean she understands how the system works, you wouldn't hire a lawyer who doesn't have a title, on the other hand, one that has written a law would appear more knowledgeable. You're being too considerate. It's not like hiring a lawyer who's written a law or has a title. It's like saying a lawyer needs to commit a crime to be a better lawyer.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      > It's like saying a lawyer needs to commit a crime to be a better lawyer. That's a ridiculous analogy. I am no fan of software patents either but likening them to a crime is just absurd.
      - marrs 11y ago
        a bit like file sharing then
    - zaphar 11y ago
      Except that software patents are not criminal, they are legal. You may wish they weren't but they are. His analogy is far more appropriate than yours. I also wish software patents didn't exist. But I'm not foolish enough to think I can pretend they don't.
- tsycho 11y ago
  I don't know her work history, but I can easily speculate innocuous reasons why her name could be on a patent. 1/ A previous employer may have filed it on her work. There doesn't need to be any specific agency or effort on her party to do so. 2/ In her early career, when patent trolls were not so prevalent, she might not have considered patents to be a bad thing. Her current thoughts on patents might be quite different.
nxzero 11y ago
As much as I value Wikipedia as a resource, I've personally never understood the culture behind it. Long-term, to me, it's unclear what the future holds for it.
- carlmcqueen 11y ago
  a very simple and well written version of the thoughts I've been having around Wikipedia.
- empath75 11y ago
  It's both a never ending disaster and the greatest resource in the history of the world.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    That's a great way to put it. With the usual things-can-always-be-improved caveat, I suspect that the same things that make Wikipedia such a valuable resource (crowdsourcing, broad scope, etc.) will continue to inevitably lead to tensions--whether organizationally or over things like inclusion/deletion.
  - matzipan 11y ago
    That's most of human nature you're describing there.
  - mathattack 11y ago
    Sounds like a description of democracy too. :-)
- Mikushi 11y ago
  Given the amount of politics involved in editor circles I don't even think valuing it as a resource is that great.
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    Show me an editor circle free of politics and I'll show you a circle of one.
jitl 11y ago
Why did the community react with such vitriol to the search engine product? I would like a free, open, privacy conscious search engine to exist.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Relations between those what run wiki and those what own wiki have always been strained. I'd imagine the LYING about the new product idea is a bigger cause of vitriol than the product itself. Wikipedia editors had been asking to see documentation about the Knight Foundation grant for several months, but Wikimedia was not forthcoming with the details. Earlier this month, documents related to the grant were leaked to and published by The Signpost, Wikipedia's online newspaper. In a special report, The Signpost published the 13-page grant agreement and ran an article asserting that the "Knowledge Engine" would be, contrary to statements by Jimmy Wales and other board members, some type of generalized Internet search engine.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    But were they actually LYING about the new product proposal? Or maybe they were just hashing out what they'd like the proposal to be, and how it's articulated, before putting it forth for community review? If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. It's often better to wait a bit before unveiling a proposal -- until it's gelled, and you have a clear articulation of what it's going to be -- rather than dump some half-baked statement of it on everybody (which would just burn through their time, and have other negative consequences).
    - forgottenpass 11y ago
      If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that aren't ready to be broadcast, and betraying the trust someone has placed in me with the understanding there are just some things I have to operate on in secret. And if you've ever been involved in anything "management-esque," you'll know that a mutual acceptance of what barriers exist doesn't preclude being deceitful and dishonest in protecting that knowledge. I won't say the line is perfectly clear, but lets look at the scenario in question. Responding in a hairsplitting manner that serves to mislead someone asking pointed questions about ideas behind the curtain. It occurred at non-profit that values transparency, the ideas were in flux but firm enough to seek grant funding, and there were no externally-imposed legal constraints to stay quiet on it. Well, that seems quite firmly in the "lie of omission" category.
bjt 11y ago
Disappointing to see this die. I would really like there to be some open, public API with a knowledge engine backend that could be part of an open source alternative to Siri, Cortana, Echo, etc.
- reality_hacker 11y ago
  some projects like wikidata and dbpedia provide public APIs. You can query them using SPARQL for example.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    Having actively looked into using Wikidata as part of a system... Hahaha ... yeah it's great for Wikipedia but pretty useless for anyone else. Don't get me started on how useless SPARQL is for "explorative search".
Camillo 11y ago
The Wikimedia Foundation should treat its treasure trove of donations as an endowment and use it to guarantee the survival of Wikipedia. If they just invested it, they may never need to do a donation drive again.

68 points by timemachine 11y ago

booop 11y ago

Good riddance. Everything about her has been a disaster. From her single edit history to her statement that she was afraid to address the community. She even has her name on a damn SOFTWARE PATENT. What were they thinking when they put her in charge?

hyperpape 11y ago
If you have a list of programming heros, it would be a nice exercise to find out how many of them have their names on a software patent. Probably quite a few of them. I don't like software patents, but having your name on one isn't the same as being a patent troll.
xlayn 11y ago
If she has a software patent, it could mean she understands how the system works, you wouldn't hire a lawyer who doesn't have a title, on the other hand, one that has written a law would appear more knowledgeable. What I suspect is the problem is this "The Board tasked me with making changes to serve the next generation and ensure our impact in the future," I would suspect if this is not political correct wording for "let's make money".
- booop 11y ago
  > If she has a software patent, it could mean she understands how the system works, you wouldn't hire a lawyer who doesn't have a title, on the other hand, one that has written a law would appear more knowledgeable. You're being too considerate. It's not like hiring a lawyer who's written a law or has a title. It's like saying a lawyer needs to commit a crime to be a better lawyer.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > It's like saying a lawyer needs to commit a crime to be a better lawyer. That's a ridiculous analogy. I am no fan of software patents either but likening them to a crime is just absurd.
    - marrs 11y ago
      a bit like file sharing then
  - zaphar 11y ago
    Except that software patents are not criminal, they are legal. You may wish they weren't but they are. His analogy is far more appropriate than yours. I also wish software patents didn't exist. But I'm not foolish enough to think I can pretend they don't.
tsycho 11y ago
I don't know her work history, but I can easily speculate innocuous reasons why her name could be on a patent. 1/ A previous employer may have filed it on her work. There doesn't need to be any specific agency or effort on her party to do so. 2/ In her early career, when patent trolls were not so prevalent, she might not have considered patents to be a bad thing. Her current thoughts on patents might be quite different.

nxzero 11y ago

As much as I value Wikipedia as a resource, I've personally never understood the culture behind it. Long-term, to me, it's unclear what the future holds for it.

carlmcqueen 11y ago
a very simple and well written version of the thoughts I've been having around Wikipedia.
empath75 11y ago
It's both a never ending disaster and the greatest resource in the history of the world.
- ghaff 11y ago
  That's a great way to put it. With the usual things-can-always-be-improved caveat, I suspect that the same things that make Wikipedia such a valuable resource (crowdsourcing, broad scope, etc.) will continue to inevitably lead to tensions--whether organizationally or over things like inclusion/deletion.
- matzipan 11y ago
  That's most of human nature you're describing there.
- mathattack 11y ago
  Sounds like a description of democracy too. :-)
Mikushi 11y ago
Given the amount of politics involved in editor circles I don't even think valuing it as a resource is that great.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  Show me an editor circle free of politics and I'll show you a circle of one.

jitl 11y ago

Why did the community react with such vitriol to the search engine product? I would like a free, open, privacy conscious search engine to exist.

forgottenpass 11y ago
Relations between those what run wiki and those what own wiki have always been strained. I'd imagine the LYING about the new product idea is a bigger cause of vitriol than the product itself. Wikipedia editors had been asking to see documentation about the Knight Foundation grant for several months, but Wikimedia was not forthcoming with the details. Earlier this month, documents related to the grant were leaked to and published by The Signpost, Wikipedia's online newspaper. In a special report, The Signpost published the 13-page grant agreement and ran an article asserting that the "Knowledge Engine" would be, contrary to statements by Jimmy Wales and other board members, some type of generalized Internet search engine.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  But were they actually LYING about the new product proposal? Or maybe they were just hashing out what they'd like the proposal to be, and how it's articulated, before putting it forth for community review? If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. It's often better to wait a bit before unveiling a proposal -- until it's gelled, and you have a clear articulation of what it's going to be -- rather than dump some half-baked statement of it on everybody (which would just burn through their time, and have other negative consequences).
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that aren't ready to be broadcast, and betraying the trust someone has placed in me with the understanding there are just some things I have to operate on in secret. And if you've ever been involved in anything "management-esque," you'll know that a mutual acceptance of what barriers exist doesn't preclude being deceitful and dishonest in protecting that knowledge. I won't say the line is perfectly clear, but lets look at the scenario in question. Responding in a hairsplitting manner that serves to mislead someone asking pointed questions about ideas behind the curtain. It occurred at non-profit that values transparency, the ideas were in flux but firm enough to seek grant funding, and there were no externally-imposed legal constraints to stay quiet on it. Well, that seems quite firmly in the "lie of omission" category.

bjt 11y ago

Disappointing to see this die. I would really like there to be some open, public API with a knowledge engine backend that could be part of an open source alternative to Siri, Cortana, Echo, etc.

reality_hacker 11y ago
some projects like wikidata and dbpedia provide public APIs. You can query them using SPARQL for example.
- techdragon 11y ago
  Having actively looked into using Wikidata as part of a system... Hahaha ... yeah it's great for Wikipedia but pretty useless for anyone else. Don't get me started on how useless SPARQL is for "explorative search".

Camillo 11y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation should treat its treasure trove of donations as an endowment and use it to guarantee the survival of Wikipedia. If they just invested it, they may never need to do a donation drive again.