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.
It's an unfortunate effect of social media and the information overload. People get flooded with info. They spot hypocrisy. They think they are doing gods works by pointing it out. They get encouraged by the likes and retweets. And we get an endless cycle of people who have no idea what to do about hypocrisy upvoting each other.
The architecture needs to change. We have hit peak hypocrisy detection. You can detect hypocrisy in anything by spending a few days looking into things just like the "activist" editors have. The kind of people who do things about hypocrisy...well...where's the algo for that?
Because they are spending donated money on something with a huge chance of failure and limited upside.
Some probably even suspect that it is a vehicle for funneling the donated money to the top management's personal pockets since that's a good explanation for why they would go ahead with something so ill-advised.
Look at it this way: they would try to create a competitive advantage, as they are also behind Wikipedia they could better use it, in the process they can create an API to access information in such a way that other search engines cant.
A better proposal would be to create a project to start adding semantics to the Wikipedia project, maybe a RFC and standards so all search engines can benefit of it.
Another option could be an open sourced project to host blogs making use of the above described tech.
Then you could perform a search based on the "intended meaning" instead of the words included and who reference it.
Edit: Removed Yandex per comment below after research.
When this event was posted here a few days ago[1] I spent probably an hour or so reading through the timeline[2] posted in one of the comments.
To a non-wikipedian such as myself it's a little opaque, but builds to quite a climax. It probably helps one to understand the depth of the resentment Tretikov engendered amongst some of the staffers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
[+] [-] jitl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpass|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Sven7|10 years ago|reply
It's an unfortunate effect of social media and the information overload. People get flooded with info. They spot hypocrisy. They think they are doing gods works by pointing it out. They get encouraged by the likes and retweets. And we get an endless cycle of people who have no idea what to do about hypocrisy upvoting each other.
The architecture needs to change. We have hit peak hypocrisy detection. You can detect hypocrisy in anything by spending a few days looking into things just like the "activist" editors have. The kind of people who do things about hypocrisy...well...where's the algo for that?
[+] [-] devit|10 years ago|reply
Some probably even suspect that it is a vehicle for funneling the donated money to the top management's personal pockets since that's a good explanation for why they would go ahead with something so ill-advised.
[+] [-] xlayn|10 years ago|reply
A better proposal would be to create a project to start adding semantics to the Wikipedia project, maybe a RFC and standards so all search engines can benefit of it.
Another option could be an open sourced project to host blogs making use of the above described tech.
Then you could perform a search based on the "intended meaning" instead of the words included and who reference it.
Edit: Removed Yandex per comment below after research.
[+] [-] ttctciyf|10 years ago|reply
To a non-wikipedian such as myself it's a little opaque, but builds to quite a climax. It probably helps one to understand the depth of the resentment Tretikov engendered amongst some of the staffers.
[+] [-] nxzero|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empath75|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlmcqueen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starshadowx2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikushi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpgmaker|10 years ago|reply
Why specifically? (Honest question).
[+] [-] Camillo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reality_hacker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booop|10 years ago|reply
She even has her name on a damn SOFTWARE PATENT. What were they thinking when they put her in charge?
[+] [-] hyperpape|10 years ago|reply
I don't like software patents, but having your name on one isn't the same as being a patent troll.
[+] [-] xlayn|10 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] tsycho|10 years ago|reply
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.