Talk:Wikimedia Discovery/FAQ

Be clearer on data sources
The first mention of "data sources" is
 * and incorporating new data sources for our projects

But that just links to a map, which seems to be a different way to display search results. Please give actual potential data sources instead of an unclear link, thanks. -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section below calls out that its supported by external OSM data. That data corpus includes items (buses, trains, etc) that are outside of what our elastic indices include. RU WikiVoyage and soon EN WIkiVoyage will default to our tiles and are already starting to surface transit, points of interest, and articles for discovery of new content. As for other data I cite 'census, national gallery, etc' in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ#If_you.27re_adding_new_data_sources.2C_isn.27t_that_a_search_engine.3F but that's really up for a community discussion of what data sources can help in the same way that OSM did Tfinc (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If Fox News or TeleSUR have the slightest chance of appearing as data sources of this searching project, I will campaign to stop it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm right there with you NaBUru38. There are data sources, like OpenStreetMap, census data, and other bits of useful open data that we could pull into search results. These would provide a more rich search experience - on wiki - that what we currently have. Of course, we want to engage early and frequently with the community to determine what would be acceptable to include. I created a task (T126980) to track this concern. I encourage you to reference it as we move forward.


 * To be honest, we probably won't get around to this for a while. We have more immediate improvements in this quarter and are working on our longer-term plans. Where something at this level most likely resides! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap is not incorporated into search (e.g. in elastic) and is separate. Of course, search results could be displayed on a map with OSM tiles. Parts of OSM data could also be used as an overlay for Wikivoyage, but don't think it should being mentioned as part of the grant and "search engine" in this way. Aude (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

orphan
This page has been up for a week but, as of the time of writing this literally nothing links to this page, it's an orphan. That's kind of ironic given that it's a strategy document for the 'discovery' team :-) Is there a plan for when this 'not-a-knowledge-engine' strategy will be announced widely? Wittylama (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've linked it from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery so it's no longer an orphan. Next we'll be adding a set of wiki pages to compliment the discussions that have been happening on phabricator, email lists, and on wiki to bring it all together Tfinc (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also would love your feedback on the Discovery Roadmap linked in the FAQ. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Discovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf Tfinc (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Are you building Google?"
This FAQ included the question "Are you building a search engine?" But after a complex edit history from a few days before the November 2015 Board of Trustees meeting, that is not at all the question that is addressed; specifically, the answer begins by stating "We are not building Google," and then includes a couple sentences I basically don't understand. This does not even come close to addressing the important question "Are you building a search engine," and leaving the section title intact is IMO highly deceptive to the casual reader. I'm not qualified or positioned to improve the answer (though I think that should be done). But I do think it's important that the question reflect what is actually said, which is why I have (for the second time) changed the question title to "Are you building Google?" Pinging who reverted this the first time. Happy to hear your thoughts, but I hope you can at least agree that this question is not addressed in this section? -Pete F (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. - Jeff Atwood"
 * Discovery is not building a competitor to Google in the sense that Google searches everything it can find. We are trying to improve search across Wikimedia projects to provide better results. That's it. Imagine being able to search for "leaning tower in Italy" and not only see the Wikipedia article in your language, but photos from commons, a map of it's location, and information on it's physical properties from Wikidata.
 * I'm new to all of this. Let me ask around and see if we can get some clarification. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pete F As you may be aware a blog post went up yesterday. Lila's also hosting an AMA-style (ask me anything) on Meta. I believe Tomasz is looking into an interview as well with the Signpost. I don't know if any of that helps with clarity, but I wanted to highlight the efforts to bring some clarity to things. I'm updating the FAQ with some of the questions that have been asked on this talk page and others. Again, more than happy to help where I can. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

More questions
The answer to the first question is very unhelpful. Whatever you are calling it, please actually describe it. That is what all the questions below are about. In what follows, please replace "Knowledge Engine" with whatever it is you are calling it. The name is not what is important. What you are working toward, is important.

From what I have been able to piece together, the Knowledge Engine is a) a bunch of data, contained in or linked to the Wikidata database; b) an interface to receive a query; c) algorithms that create and display an answer to the query based on the data, formatted sort of like a WP article.

I have no idea how KE search results are envisioned to relate to existing WP content; if the notion here is just to archive existing content, or somehow fragment it and import it all into Wikidata, or if existing content will somehow remain in existence and available to the public. I have no idea if the WMF intends to put any further energy into making existing WP content more available to the public in the form in which it currently exists. Please address all that.

I don't understand what role the existing editing community is intended to play in all this.

If I am way off track, would you please describe in some detail what the Knowledge Engine actually is imagined to be, and what it will do, and how it will relate to the Wikipedia that exists today -- concretely, so it is understandable to the average reader of WP? (without technobabble) Three key questions there.

More concretely

1) Please rewrite the question "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" in plain English.

The "Wikipedia" we all know is an encyclopedia full of articles created and maintained by people.

I don't know what an "open channel" means.

I don't know what "an open channel beyond an encyclopedia" means. The question implies that the "encyclopedia" won't exist anymore - instead, the "open channel" would exist. Is that what is envisioned? If so, what happens to the Wikipedia content that exists today?

2) What would a Knowledge Engine search result look like? Are this and this prototypes of what you have in mind?

3) How exactly does Wikidata fit into the Knowledge Engine vision?  Is the vision here that results like those above will be created on the fly by the algorithms based on Wikidata when someone makes a query to the Knowledge Engine?  And that WMF will aggregate a bunch of other source data into Wikidata, or link to, or whatever?

4) Will there be any content curated by editors as there is today, or will the editing community become curators of Wikidata?

Please incorporate answers into the FAQ.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good feedback Jytdog, thank you for taking the time to share. I updated the FAQ a little. Please have a look and let me know if there's something that is still not clear. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply!
 * Let me first say that if you are not aware of it (and I can't believe you are not :) ) your management's behavior has generated a lot of distrust.  So I am looking for clear answers that make sense in light of other information that is out there, primarily the actual Knight grant agreement.
 * Second, I have worked a lot with grant agreements in academia, and I understand how they work, and I know that you cannot change the scope unilaterally.  Would you please let me know either way,  if WMF and Knight have amended the agreement to change the scope?  I am assuming the scope has not changed....
 * Third, I understand you are not using "Knowledge Engine". What do we call this?
 * OK, specific responses.


 * a) A bunch of the changes made today don't address my questions which were "where is this going - what is the vision" questions. Many of the answers  are down in the weeds of what is happening in this phase of discovery.  If that is mostly what you are going to talk about here, that is fine, but please be explicit about that so I can ask somewhere else, where I can get the answers I am looking for.  Please don't waste my time.   What I am looking for is  a simple statement of the big picture, like this: "the whatever-you-are-calling-it system is envisioned to be a) a bunch of data in the WMF domains and outside it that are linked to the Wikidata database; b) an interface to receive a query at wikipedia.org; c) algorithms that create and display an answer to the query based on the data, formatted sort of like a WP article sort of like this."  Something high level and understandable.  Can you do that?


 * b) You simply removed reference to the "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" question, which is part of what you are meant to be exploring in this phase of the grant and probably the most alarming aspect for me.   I don't see that you re-wrote this and moved it elsewhere.  Why you have removed reference to this?   What would be really helpful would be an FAQ like "What is 'open channel beyond an encyclopedia'?"  with a clear explanation.


 * c) I understand that the current WMF line is that the KE is meant to search "Wikimedia projects." This contradicts what WMF said in the grant application, which is no where limited to WMF domains but instead talks about "the internet".    Again unless you have amended the agreement you have to be dealing with "the internet."  Now my sense is that you want to link other freely-available data sources on the internet to Wikidata or have the "KE" directly query them too.  But please give an answer here that deals with "the internet" in reasonably plain English.


 * d) WMF is putting out what are to me misleading statements saying "What are we not doing? We’re not building a global crawler search engine." and here you have an FAQ that says "Are you building a search engine to replace Google?" Nobody thinks you are doing either thing, and it is a bit frustrating.  (I find the former especially... bad as I have never seen anyone imply you are building a "crawler")   But to your FAQ...  I don't think that anybody thinks that WMF ever intends to do all the things that Google does nor even all the things a Google search can produce (e.g. show me relevant flights or movie times).   But the grant makes it very clear that the WMF finds great fault with "commercial search engines" and is proposing to do something much better - more transparent, more privacy, and not driven by money.


 * I think you are intending to provide "better" answers for certain kinds of queries than commercial search engines provide and the WMF wants people to come to wikipedia.org (our main search page) to do them. And as is noted explicitly in the revised FAQ,  there is also a desire to keep users who already within WMF domains, within them, instead of losing them when they can't find stuff and having them go off and doing a Google/Bing etc search.  Wanting people to come to wikpedia.org instead of Google/Bing/etc for certain queries, and not losing users who already here to Google/Bing/etc, is competing with them.  It just is.


 * Would you please revise the FAQ to deal with the heart of the matter? The current FAQ is really a distraction and doesn't ask nor answer the real question. A question like: "Why would I search with the envisioned search engine instead of Google's or Bing's"  or "How would the results of a search through our engine be different than a search in Google or Bing or other search engines?"  might be good.


 * e) You don't say anything about what a "query result" is envisioned to look like. Please do. (this is really important to me, at least)   Without understanding what a search result is envisioned to look like, and whether it would lead to actual WP articles or if it will lead to a machine-generated "knowledge graph" or mini-article, I cannot make sense of this whole thing.  I really can't, and this is a very key issue about what people will find when they come to "Wikipedia"   Will they find an encyclopedia, or will they find a "channel beyond" it?   Please do clarify.


 * f) This is a funny edit note. But see above. And please note that I have seen this video which looks an awful lot like content created by a "robot" (to go with your funny term) in response to a query, and I am aware of Approach 6 discussed here.  This really is a big vision thing - is the WMF walking away from having search point to articles and making article content more available the public?  Where are they taking us?   I really (really!) do see the value in having search work better and many other benefits to what I think the KE could do.... I just don't see the vision of how that fits with the WP-that-exists.  That is what I am looking for.  And I understand that you might not be the one to articulate that.  But someone needs to.  Please point me to them if it is not you.  Thanks.


 * And thanks for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Structure of the page
Merging in the Knight grant stuff makes sense, but probably not at the very top of the page. I would propose having a few top-level sections, like Knowledge Engine, Knight Grant, and Discovery work. And then all the existing questions could fit within one of the top-level buckets. While the term "knowledge engine" is interesting from a historical perspective, and the Knight grant is interesting from a transparency perspective, I suspect a lot of people just want to know what the Discovery department has been doing, is doing now, and plans to do in the future. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for any confusion there KSmith (WMF). I saw we had two FAQs with related topics and wanted to bring clarity to things. If you want to take on the restructure, please do. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's appropriate here? These are conversations and I'd hate to move things around and upset anyone. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I've been looking at too many Talk pages today and got confused. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I created the basic structure I envisioned. I'm pretty sure it could be improved. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you really trying to improve plain old WP search??
Is part of what you are trying to improve is searches through this? If so I am wildly happy as that search engine is awful. I waste so much time looking for stuff -- especially trying to find things in old Talk page discussions or archived discussions on notice boards. I waste so. much. time. with that search engine. Just in en-wiki, which is where the information I want is. If that is what you were really doing (outside of the Knight Foundation grant stuff) I would be very happy. Please do tell if that is part of what you are fixing. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've been a volunteer for about 5 years now and a visitor even longer. I too keep going crazy with the current search. It's getting better. We're a relatively new team mind you, and are already making small, progressive improvements. We have a beta feature now for the Completion Suggester which is a small step in the right direction. That should be going out to everyone in the near future (by the end of March, communication and feedback withstanding). We also have a list of goals for this current quarter if you want to keep up. There's a lot to improve. We're tracking our thoughts and progress in Phabricator. If you see something you're interested in knowing more about, let us know. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be amazing. A lot of what I have heard has been about making all the various WM content and WP content more accessible when someone searches.  Like I said I get especially frustrated trying to find specific diffs as well as old discussions.  I am sorry to ask this, but is your team aware that if you search (for example) the ANI archives, you get results like this?  There is no discernable time-order, and no way to refine the search - not even old school boolean works.   I waste so much time going from those results, to what I am looking for, and I have always wondered "How can this be?" Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be amazing! :) There's some smart folks working on it. Check out the beta feature if you haven't already. It's a small, but apparent improvement. I've reached out to the Discovery team to ask how/if some of our near-term goals will impact the types of searches you are asking about. I'll let you know what I find out. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The "robots" question
The following FAQ is framed in a pretty disrespectful way, and it is not at all clear to me, that the response here speaks for the WMF board and the ED. I am parking it here for now.


 * Is the Wikimedia Foundation looking into replacing editors with robots?

No. We think technologies like machine learning and similar tools can help with aggregation of all the rich content humans have created across our projects. Like the work our colleagues have done with ORES in improving the quality of article content.

At no part are we trying to replace or subvert the work of our human editors. We want to figure out smarter ways to return search results that answer visitors questions - even when those searches currently result in zero results. Imagine in the future searching for something we don't have an article for in a particular language Wikipedia - but we do have books in Wikisource, or quotes in Wikiquotes, or photos in Commons. Wouldn't it be great to have a link to those items in search results instead of nothing?

-Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote that answer. You singled out the word "robots" in quotes. Do you feel that is a disrespectful description? I thought about using the word "bot" as in "Internet bot", but I thought for clarity I'd be explicit and spell out the (more common) word. We got this question, or variants along the lines of 'automatically written articles by a bot' quite a bit in other venues (mailing lists, other talk pages). I thought adding it to the FAQ would answer the common question and provide clarity about how we are currently looking at utilizing bots. Sorry for any confusion. If I've missed your concern, could you be more specific with what you feel is disrespectful? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits today
I was BOLD and made some edits to this today, to try to help the Discovery team address the concerns in the community. I am sorry if this was offensive, and if I wrote anything wrong. If I did write anything wrong, please correct it. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits. I made a few tweaks as well. I hope this better addresses some of your concerns. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)