One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content without making their derivative work open.
- *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license. On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > I used the phrase "run amok" based on comments at > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ>. Specifically, > > Brion Vibber writes: > > > > "Former VP of Engineering Damon Sicore, who as far as I know conceived > the > > 'knowledge engine', shopped the idea around in secret (to the point of > > GPG-encrypting emails about it) with the idea that Google/etc form an > > 'existential threat' to Wikipedia in the long term by co-opting our > > traffic, potentially reducing the inflow of new contributors via the > > 'reader -> editor' pipeline. [...]" > > > > Jimmy Wales replies: > > > > "It is important, most likely, that people know that Damon's secrecy was > > not something that was known to me or the rest of the board. I've only > > yesterday been sent, by a longtime member of staff who prefers to remain > > anonymous, the document that Damon was passing around GPG-encrypted with > > strict orders to keep it top secret. Apparently, he (and he alone, as far > > as I can tell) really was advocating for taking a run at Google. [...]" > > > > > I find it interesting to compare Damon's purported concerns with those > voiced by Jimmy Wales in his October emails to James Heilman, as made > available to the Signpost: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed > > There we read that Wales said: > > <quote> > Right now the page at www.wikipedia.org is pretty useless. There's no > question it could be improved. Is your concern that if we improve it and it > starts to look like a "search engine" in the first definition this could > cause us problems? > > Are you concerned that in due course we might expand beyond just internal > search (across all our properties)? > > Right now when I type "Queen Elizabeth II" I am taken to the article about > her. I'm not told about any other resources we may have about her. > > If I type a search term for which there is no Wikipedia entry, I'm taken to > our wikipedia search results page – which is pretty bad. > > Here's an example: search for 'how old is tom cruise?' > > It returns 10 different articles, none of which are Tom Cruise! > > When I search in Google – I'm just told the answer to the question. Google > got this answer from us, I'm quite sure. > > So, yes, this would include Google graph type of functionality. Why is that > alarming to you? > > ... > > I don't agree that there's a serious gulf between what we have been told > and what funders are being told. > > ... > > Imagine if we could handle a wide range of questions that are easy enough > to do by using wikidata / data embedded in templates / textual analysis. > > "How old is Tom Cruise?" > > "Is Tom Cruise married?" > > "How many children does Tom Cruise have?" > > The reason this is relevant is that we are falling behind what users > expect. 5 years ago, questions like that simple returned Wikipedia as the > first result at Google. Now, Google just tells the answer and the users > don't come to us. > <end of quote> > > > When told that there clearly had been an attempt to fund a massive project > to build a search engine that was then "scoped down to a $250k exploration > for a fully developed plan", Wales replied: > > > <quote> > In my opinion: There was and there is and there will be. I strongly support > the effort, and I'm writing up a public blog post on that topic today. Our > entire fundraising future is at stake. > <end of quote> > > > Wales's concerns don't sound all that different from Sicore's to me. > > Both seem to have perceived developments at Google as an existential > threat, because users get their answers there without having to navigate to > Wikipedia or Wikidata (which are among the sources from which Google takes > its answers). > > Nor do I think these concerns are entirely unfounded. By opting for a CC > licence allowing full commercial re-use, years ago, Wikipedia set itself up > to be cannibalised in precisely that way. > > For better or worse, it relinquished all control over how and by whom its > knowledge would be presented. It should hardly come as a surprise that > commercial operators then step up to exploit that vacuum, set up commercial > operations based on Wikimedia content, and eventually draw users away. > > Moreover, the current search function does suck. Anyone looking for a > picture on Commons for example is better off using Google than the internal > search function. > > What I don't understand is why all the secrecy and double-talk was > necessary. > > > > > > These same individuals posted to this mailing list: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082150.html > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083163.html > > > > This reported secrecy and cloak-and-dagger behavior is what I'm referring > > to when I say Damon ran amok. I suppose we can leave it as an exercise to > > the reader whether "run amok" is accurate phrasing given the evidence > > presented. Upon reading the previous comments that Damon, not Lila, was > > responsible for the secrecy, I'm perplexed by your recent comment > > regarding "Lila's decision." What am I missing? > > > > Damon left in July 2015. Secrecy around the Knowledge Engine project and > the Knight grant lasted until February 2016. Perhaps this no longer > involved GPG encryption, but as late as 29 January 2016 Lila still led the > community to believe that "donor privacy" issues were the reason why the > board didn't publish the Knight Foundation grant agreement: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)/Archive_12#Why_did_the_board_not_publish_this_grant_paperwork.3F > > Yet the donor was in favour of full transparency ... > _______________________________________________ > 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>
