That confirms the "Crazy, not very well thought out idea," part of my reply. :)
Yours, Chris Koerner Community Liaison Wikimedia Foundation On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Much as I think that humans can help with searches, the Wikimedia > contributor community is far to small to handle the amount of work that we > should be doing already. It's conceivable that adding a small amount of > work to local RDs or their equivalents could be done with minimal impact, > but please let's not (1) encourage readers and searchers to expect a higher > level of service than the community is likely to deliver, and/or (2) add > significant workloads without also adding the human resources to adequately > address them. > > Improving the human resource capacity of the contributor community would > help a great deal. Unfortunately, repeated efforts to do this over the > years have failed. While there are more ideas in the pipeline, I'm not > optimistic that we will see significant increases in capacity in the > foreseeable future. > > If WMF wants to add paid staff to answer RD-type questions from the > public, that might solve the human resources problem with your proposal, > but my feeling is that the money would be better spent elsewhere. > > Pine > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Chris Koerner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Crazy, not very well thought out idea, but what if we link searches with >>> less than 3 results to the local equivalent of the Wikipedia Reference >>> desk. :) [0] "Can't find what you're looking for? Ask for help." >>> >> >> But then we're dropping readers into a part of Wikipedia they probably >> never dreamed of with no warning. And we're asking them to write >> wikimarkup, and unless they're signed in they won't know that their >> question has been answered. And of course we're exposing the Reference Desk >> to a flood of poorly-articulated questions. >> >> Former features like the Article Feedback Tool and MoodBar were designed >> to handle questions from readers and newcomers in a way that was manageable >> for the questioner and answerer (I'm not saying they worked perfectly or >> even well, but that's what they were for). Until we have an interface that >> makes it easy to ask reference questions and answer them, and works at >> scale, I don't think shunting them to the Reference Desk is the answer. >> >> Although I will say I like where you're going. Wikipedia is too big and >> too idiosyncratic for us to ever have perfect search, and leveraging the >> expertise of the editing community, if they're interested, seems like a >> productive direction. >> >> - J >> >> >>> >>> How can we pair up the smart search and emerging AIs with the pretty >>> darn good resourcefulness of other humans? Even if you're a little cold on >>> this idea, it would be a small stop gap until the (hopefully altruistic) >>> AI's appear. :) >>> >>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk >>> >>> Inspired by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_a_Librarian >>> >>> Yours, >>> Chris Koerner >>> Community Liaison >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I do! When it seems readable and useful, and I know that it exists. And >>>> when I have something riding on the outcome. - J >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Deborah Tankersley < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Detailed, readable documentation (which is accessible directly from >>>>>> the search interface) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yup, totally agree. But, in real life, who reads the documentation >>>>> anyway? ;) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> deb tankersley >>>>> irc: debt >>>>> Product Manager, Discovery >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Morgan < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> When I read this article, I wasn't struck that the author was saying >>>>>> she thought that technology "owed" her particular results. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the point she's making is that so much of our life now is >>>>>> mediated by algorithms that make choices we may not understand, and that >>>>>> impacts how we see the world in ways we can't easily anticipate or >>>>>> account >>>>>> for (supporting quotes below). And the problem is subtler and more >>>>>> pervasive than simply issues of "filter bubbles" and "fake news" that are >>>>>> currently garnering the biggest headlines. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is part of a broader conversation that happening right now >>>>>> around algorithmic transparency and "ethical AI". Lots and lots of big >>>>>> names are weighing in on the topic[1][2][3][4][5][6]. >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't see a whole lot of specific design guidance around how to >>>>>> support transparency in the context of search yet, but I'd be interested >>>>>> in >>>>>> hearing from others who have. Detailed, readable documentation (which is >>>>>> accessible directly from the search interface) sounds like a pretty good >>>>>> start :) >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jonathan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *"I am still not accustomed to the drastic ways search algorithms can >>>>>> direct people’s lives. We’re so used to Google’s suggested spellings and >>>>>> the autocorrect of texting apps that we’ve stopped thinking too hard >>>>>> about >>>>>> how we search or how we spell. If I tap out Chrissy but should have typed >>>>>> Krissy, I implicitly believe that of course the opaque algorithms of >>>>>> Facebook will intuit my intent. But we have no way of probing the limits >>>>>> of >>>>>> the algorithms that govern our lives.""When we talk about the algorithms >>>>>> that drive sites like Google and Facebook, we marvel at their cleverness >>>>>> in >>>>>> serving us information, or we worry about the ways in which they >>>>>> exacerbate >>>>>> bias—profiling people based on gross data trends, for example, to decide >>>>>> who gets a loan and who doesn’t. But there is a complex web of >>>>>> algorithmic >>>>>> life-shaping at work that we barely register. It’s not that I wish >>>>>> Facebook >>>>>> treated its Cs and Ks alike. It’s that by not knowing the rules, we give >>>>>> up >>>>>> some agency to mathematical calculations."* >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy >>>>>> /2017_usacm_statement_algorithms.pdf >>>>>> 2. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908372/the-ftc-is-worried >>>>>> -about-algorithmic-transparency-and-you-should-be-too.html >>>>>> 3. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/08/theme-7-the-need-gr >>>>>> ows-for-algorithmic-literacy-transparency-and-oversight/ >>>>>> 4. https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/ >>>>>> 5. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603915/tech-giants-gra >>>>>> pple-with-the-ethical-concerns-raised-by-the-ai-boom/ >>>>>> 6. https://cyber.harvard.edu/research/ai >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Trey Jones <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing, Chris! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found the article a bit frustrating. As a human interest story, >>>>>>> it's very touching that the sisters were able to reconnect despite >>>>>>> family >>>>>>> problems that worked to keep them apart. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But from the technology side of things, blaming search algorithms >>>>>>> seems odd to me. I'm surprised that anyone would feel that technology >>>>>>> owed >>>>>>> them particular results or specific capabilities—especially capabilities >>>>>>> they didn't even know they needed. That might actually be a useful >>>>>>> insight >>>>>>> into our own users, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm also surprised the author didn't use anything other than search >>>>>>> engines and social media. I've had to track down a dozen or so people >>>>>>> who >>>>>>> were out of touch for up to 20+ years, for a book project, and there >>>>>>> are so >>>>>>> many resources out there! Even more if you are able to spend a few >>>>>>> dollars >>>>>>> per person—which "book project people" did not warrant, but siblings >>>>>>> would. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, getting a bit more on-topic, how do we help people by not only >>>>>>> providing them with useful information, but also the tools and processes >>>>>>> that allow them to get the most from that information? It seems like >>>>>>> documentation works for very sophisticated users, but the rest have to >>>>>>> collectively and very unevenly accrete familiarity with tools over time; >>>>>>> learning/teaching processes seems even more daunting. I can't see a way >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> accelerate that process, which is disheartening. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —Trey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trey Jones >>>>>>> Software Engineer, Discovery >>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Chris Koerner < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to Erica Litrenta for sharing this with me. I thought I'd >>>>>>>> share if forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "It was because of the letter K that I found my younger sister, >>>>>>>> but for 14 years, it was also the letter K that kept us apart." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.wired.com/story/search-algorithms-kept-me-from-m >>>>>>>> y-sister-for-14-years >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>> Chris Koerner >>>>>>>> Community Liaison >>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jonathan T. Morgan >>>>>> Senior Design Researcher >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> discovery mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jonathan T. Morgan >>>> Senior Design Researcher >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discovery mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discovery mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Morgan >> Senior Design Researcher >> Wikimedia Foundation >> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discovery mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > discovery mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery > >
_______________________________________________ discovery mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
