Wikimedia Discovery is the team working on search, not the search system. Either that or I'm a search engine and didn't even know it, I guess. Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Asked and answered. The Knowledge Engine will only search pages that the Wikimedia Foundation controls (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikidata, etc.) and not pages controlled by anyone else (the rest of the Internet, for instance). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be referring to [ https://maps.wikimedia.org/ ], which the Wikimedia Foundation controls and which uses data from OpenStreetMap. This is no different from Wikipedia pages that are mostly copies of articles in the New American Cyclopedia -- Wikipedia controls the content of the page, but the source is a public domain source that we don't control (it was written in 1866). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Specific: "Internal struggles related to the lack of transparency around the project had culminated in the dismissal of community-selected Wikimedia board member James Heilman in December of 2015" assumes without evidence that the story we are getting from James Heilman is the truth and the contradictory story we are getting from Jimbo Wales and the rest of the WMF board are lies.
General: The primary author of this article, QuackGuru, has been heavily involved in the controversy over the Knowledge Engine on Jimbo's talk page, and is also the primary author of a heavily-criticised essay at User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia that shows a non-neutral POV towards Wikipedia. (You won't see the criticism because it gets deleted.[1]). QuackGuru is no stranger to controversy [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and should know the rules on NPOV. I too am involved, and other than making a couple of attempts to correct obvious POV problems that QuackGuru reverted, I have no intention of editing the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Nocturnalnow has removed most or all of the NPOV material -- including the material that I tried to remove but was reverted by QuackGuru. QuackGuru, are you willing to accept the present version so I can remove the neutrality tag from the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru is talking with me about the article on my talk page in a friendly manner. I'm confident everything will work out well for the article's development. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, consensus on the talk page is needed if the Heilman reference is to be considered notable enough for this article. I will review the rest of the new edits tomorrow. I think I saw several repeats of the same criticism, please see if you can remove some duplicated criticisms. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Multiple sources discuss it. So that makes it notable. But notability is not a policy based argument to restore or delete. Since it is very relevant it can be included. You did not give a specific reason for excluding it. The previous objection on the talk page was for a different sentence. I rewrote it using a different source. It is part of the story according to the sources. For the first sentence I did clearly explain on the talk page that it is a "search engine project" according to the sources. It was also initiated in 2015. All this information is relevant. I forgot to clarify it is not a universal search engine. I will go ahead and fix what I think are the remaining concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The initial concern was with the sentence "Internal struggles related to the lack of transparency around the project had culminated in the dismissal of community-selected Wikimedia board member James Heilman in December of 2015". The rewrite is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public led to his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees.[1][13]" The text is neutrally written and pertinent to the topic. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not think info about Jame Heilman belongs in the article about Knowledge Engine at this time, especially not info about a dismissal. I do not see a connection that is well-sourced enough or RS content which is definitive or substantial enough to include it. If, however, a consensus develpos here to include it, I will abide by the consensus, in the meantime, I will revert it for the reasons given as well as possibly a BLP violation relating to Heilman. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
So I reverted QuackGuru's recent edits for the reasons I gave here re: Heilman and for the reasons I gave QuackGuru earlier about not wanting to overemphasize the term "search" engine, while allowing it to remain in the article in several places. I suppose I will transfer that discussion here as well. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Your disagreement is with V and NPOV when multiple sources confirm that the WMF is building a search engine. When the first sentence does not say what it is then it is unclear. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Objective analysis from non-Wikipedians
I also have some great news, QuackGuru. I had 3 average working people at Starbucks this A.M. read the article, and especially concentrating on the 1st. sentence, and all 3 said it was easy to understand and that the 1st. sentence as it stands is not ambiguous or vague in any way. Two of the 3 did have the exact same objection to the article's content; they both think that the criticism section is what one called "insider squabbling", and which should have been left out altogether.
So, I have to think the article as is is in good shape in terms of clarity but we do need to trim back or maybe even eliminate the "criticism" section as being "insider" info which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You think it may be "insider squabbling", and which should have been left out altogether." Suggesting the criticism section should be deleted will not make a good article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I just read some poignant reasoning in the discussion above; "But when I work on controversial articles, I never edit in away that expresses the spin that any party is putting on the dispute. It isn't helpful to the public, with regard to understanding what is going on." I think we have to be prioritizing this reasoning in our editing here.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
See "Google Search, commonly referred to as Google Web Search or Google, is a web search engine owned by Google Inc."
See "Yahoo! Search is a web search engine owned by Yahoo."
See "Ask.com (originally known as Ask Jeeves) is a question answering-focused e-business and web search engine founded in 1996 by Garrett Gruener and David Warthen in Berkeley, California."
Other articles clearly indicate what the topic is.
The first sentence for this article is ambiguous and vague. I don't think it should be a jigsaw puzzle. It is clear what it is according to the sources. For example, see "Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has announced plans for an ad-free Internet search engine that prioritizes user privacy and transparency."[11] Also see "Over the weekend you may have heard news that the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that finances and founded Wikipedia, is interested in creating a search engine..."[12] Also see "Wikipedia may soon have its own search engine. Its parent company, Wikimedia Foundation was granted a sum of $250,000 (roughly Rs. 1.7 crores) late last year, an announcement which was only made available to the public this month. Dubbed Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, the San Francisco-based non-profit organisation is building a search engine..."[13]QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Since some of the sources present Jimbo's assertiveness in distinguishing between Knowledge Engine and Google Search I think it is too confusing to the readers to use the term "search engine" too often or unless it is necessary, which it is not in the first sentence. "Search engine" is used in a quote in the lede so that's enough I think. I also think the first sentence is very clear and not vague as is. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It is necessary to say what it is because the reader does not know what it is when they read the first sentence. There is text in the lede that does distinguish KE from Google. The first sentence does not even mention the Wikimedia Foundation is developing the search engine project. I checked the edit history. User:Koavf originally wrote "Wikimedia Discovery is a search engine and knowledge graph created in 2016 by the Wikimedia Foundation to display verifiable and trustworthy information on the Internet."[14]QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It was initiated in 2015. According to WP:LEADSENTENCE: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." The topic is a "search engine project" QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Just as "search engine project" can be a topic with some articles, "knowledge engine project" can be, and in this case is, the more specific and correct terminology for the topic. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The topic is not "knowledge engine project". The name is "Knowledge Engine". The project is focusing on developing a search engine. QuackGuru (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru , you framed it as a "search engine project" in your 3rd. comment above. I am trying to relate to your own terminology. I will agree that the name and the topic is "Knowledge Engine".
The name is a "Knowledge Engine", but the name is not a topic. You are not making sense when you claim the topic is also the name. The name and topic are two different things You claim "I am trying to relate to your own terminology." It is not my terminology. It is what many sources say it is. I previously explained this at the topic of this thread. See Talk:Knowledge_Engine_(Wikimedia_Foundation)#Ambiguous_first_sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, thank you for not reinserting the Heilman sentence. I aim to start afresh with collaberating with you..as it seems you and I are the primary editors of the article at this time. I would ask that we not use each other's words to make our points re article content as that might limit the openness of our discussion with each other. And if we do go down that path, then we have to do that in full context, e.g. the question I asked on Jimb's page about a description of Knowledge Engine was ill-conceived and I struck it out myself within minutes, but the reference you made to it did not explain about the strike out.
One more thing, when your attention comes to this article, you edit very quickly and seem to expect me to respond quickly. Like you, perhaps, my attention to this article only happens when my other activities allow. So, please allow me at least 6 hours to respond to your suggestions for changes before you make those changes. I would really appreciate that and I will afford you the same consideration.
So, I think we were collaborating pretty well up til the last day or 2 so lets start afresh. ok ?
So, assuming you are willing to work with me, I'd like to try to smooth out and optimize our communication and I have 1 question which I think would help me in this regard.
Please tell me what the 3 major issues/events that you think should be included in this article based upon the RS content before us as of today. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Both of you should stop editing the article now (as I have done) while the COI discussion below plays out, and the Heilman sentence should stay out (as is our policy) until the BLP concerns play out. Would one of you like to post these questions on the COI and BLP notice boards, or shall I? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you have concluded that there is no merit to the argument there was a possible BLP violation is irrelevant. An experienced editor has expressed a good-faith concern that there is a BLP issue, so it stays out until we get a ruling. You have been around long enough to know how the rules work. Bring it up on the BLP noticeboard and see if they agree with you. n the meantime, don't try to re-insert the material. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made a couple of edits to the page (which you reverted immediately), then I thought about it and concluded that I have a COI and stopped editing the page. What's your point? That I have a COI? Yes, I do, as do you.
You replied to "The fact that you have concluded that there is no merit to the argument there was a possible BLP violation is irrelevant." with a simple restatement of your irrelevant conclusion that there is no BLP issue. Nobody cares. When editors disagree about BLP violations, the material stays out until there is a consensus that there is no BLP issue (this typically happens on the BLP noticeboard). Put it in again and you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Wikipedia takes BLP issues very seriously. Even if Nocturnalnow is wrong about there being a BLP issue his removal stands. The only exception is when a disruptive editor makes a bad-faith WP:CRYBLP edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, any editor who has made comments taking sides in the on-wiki dispute regarding the KE (This includes me) should declare a COI here on the talk page and stop editing the article, instead making suggestions on the talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
After events surrounding the Knowledge Engine project Lila Tretikov resigned from the WMF. She may talk to the media after she leaves her position. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost
Many staffers had little information about the project, despite the fact that the WMF was asking for millions of dollars from the Knight Foundation to implement it. Heilman told the Signpost that he and fellow Board member Dariusz Jemielniak had to fight a reluctant Tretikov and other Board members to receive key documents about the Knowledge Engine. Regarding this accusation leveled at Tretikov, Bartov later wrote on Facebook:
It was only after staff (outside the Discovery team, *who were also in the dark* regarding the grant and what was written in it) began asking persistent questions on the staff-wide mailing list about the mysterious and undefined "Knowledge Engine" that Lila shared any information at all.
The Discovery team is tasked with implementing the Knowledge Engine, yet according to the minutes of last week's Discovery meeting, which contained some candid discussion, some team members appear to have learned key details about the project from a Signpost report.
All the text you added to the lede is duplication. It is also from leaked documents. Later in the lede it clearly explains this. The WMF has not confirmed it is there current position. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I added this to the lede to avoid confusion. "In response to media speculation, the WMF published a response clarifying its intentions: "What are we not doing? We're not building a global crawler search engine [...] Despite headlines, we are not trying to compete with other platforms, including Google. As a non-profit we are noncommercial and support open knowledge. Our focus is on the knowledge contributed on the Wikimedia projects. [...] We intend to research how Wikimedia users seek, find, and engage with content. This essential information will allow us to make critical improvements to discovery on the Wikimedia projects."[4]" Things are moving fast and it can be confusing. I still do not understand what it is. It is a mystery to me. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. I think its an attempt to provide a state of the art non-commercialized way to search for publicly available information. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph will be for "Development". I will move the other text to a new paragraph in the lede and expand it. The specific text does not mention "many" or "some" according to the source. The part "many" is for a very different sentence. See "According to the Signpost, many..."[21] See WP:SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
See “A search engine is a potentially valid way of expressing our mission statement,” Wyatt told me. “The mission statement is about transparency and collaboration, and a secret search engine is not that.”[22] The first sentence in the lede does not make it clear what type of project it is. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I like the first sentence because it is so inexact just as most of the available RS information. I tried to tailor the article, including a substantial "criticism" section, so that the readers can think about the friction within the community as well as the concept of a knowledge engine rather than just have an article that lays out factoids. On a different note, I see you are aware of Stephen Wolfram's engine and wonder whether you think it should be mentioned in this article just as a point of comparison? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No sources say it is not a search engine project. It will be a search engine but the WMF says it will be different than Google. It will be a transparent search engine. See "Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has announced plans for an ad-free Internet search engine that prioritizes user privacy and transparency."[23]
Here is an Interesting interview. Yes, your words about "search engine" are accurate. However, I still say the way the article reads now is actually a perfect representation of all of the available RS info curated in a way where all the info fits together, like a jigsaw puzzle. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
"The WP:lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1]" The first sentence is a puzzle and the lede does not summarise the body yet. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Its getting dark here now and I have outside chores to do so I will sleep on your points tonight and tomorrow we can discuss more, if that's ok with you? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
ok, so maybe you can fix the original research, just don't make it look like all editors feel the same way. And tell me what is not accurate in the lede and I will fix that tomorrow; that's a reasonable compromise I think. There is no big rush, imo, let's just get it perfect. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence is a puzzle to the reader. The lede is way too short and does not summarize the controversies or Criticism section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I can fix the inaccurate text and I want to expand the page too. I don't think the original research should remain in the article much longer. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, consensus on the talk page is needed if the Heilman reference is to be considered notable enough for this article. I will review the rest of the new edits tomorrow. I think I saw several repeats of the same criticism, please see if you can remove some duplicated criticisms. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The argument "please obtain consensus on talk page before adding any of this information" is not a rationale argument for reverting back to an old version. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. The text should be clear in the first sentence and throughout the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru (talk), the main thing for me is what's the rush? I am an old man and need time to think about and respond to your points. In the meantime, I do not want to see the article changed in a major way, at least not until some other editors get involved. I would appreciate it if you could slow down somewhat. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And, imo, The text is already clear in the first sentence and throughout the article. Let's keep this on the article talk page now, please. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am confused by your recent comments on the talk page and your recent edit. It appears you want the article to be a jigsaw puzzle based on your edit. The facts should not be a secret to the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, the facts are not kept out of the article and it only can be characterized as a "jigsaw" puzzle in the most simplistic way..like maybe a 2 piece jigsaw puzzle..which virtually all articles other than stubs can be seen as; i.e. readers put together what is at the middle and end of the article with what is at the beginning. "Jigsaw puzzle" is not a good term to use, perhaps, in this context. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:CON, there must be a valid reason to delete the text. Ignoring talk page discussions and continuing to delete pertinent could be described as WP:STONEWALLing, and the editor could be guilty of disruptive editing. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.
Hey, all I can say for right now is that I'm working on a couple follow ups. I'm going to leave the Wikipedia editing to Wikipedia editors for now, but expect some more stories, hopefully will bring a little more clarity. my email is jason@motherboard.tv if anyone wants to reach out Jkoebler (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)jason
QuackGuru, I'm a bit disappointed that you are using my words against me, especially in a debatably out of context way. I think that we are slowly improving the article and I am confident that we will soon, thankfully, have more editors helping us. In the meantime, I suggest just chilling out, have a beer, and don't try to be too pushy with this nice old man. If your opinions about the content are so obviously correct, other editors will soon be here to help. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I think consensus is in accordance with the article as it was before your recent edits. I have some appointments to keep the rest of the day so, please do not add content for now...let someone else add it but I think you need some cooling off time from this article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You are not giving a rationale argument to turn this page into what you describe as a "jigsaw puzzle". A puzzle in not an encyclopedic article. I think next may be Jimbo Wales' talk page? Should we ask Jimbo Wales how to write this page? Absolutely not. The article can document the controversies. There is no reason not to. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Damn, you're leaning on the "jigsaw puzzle" for too long. Forget that if you can not discriminate between a 2-3 piece puzzle that babies can connect and a 1,000 piece that you or I can not connect.. I meant like a "baby" puzzle. Our readers are not as stupi as you imply. The article is better:
A: Without overstating and misrepresenting the "search engine" aspect of our Knowledge Engine, and
B: to reference a yet to be reported by a reliable source in a way that justifies encyclopedic inclusion an internal personnel issue that included dismisal, THAT is an obvious BLP violation ! Now , I've been patient talk, and I have to go now to my next medical appointment,
so I am putting the content back to where it is NPOV and if you bring back the drama and personal stuff re: Heilman again, I will have to put back the NPOV tag myself ! Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
B: There was no BLP violation. One of the sources states "Late last year, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member James Heilman was dismissed from the board. Heilman has hinted that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing."[24] The text in the article is neutrally written and does not take sides. You haven't given a logical reason to slapping the article with a NPOV tag. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't be placing a tag on it. I have been unable to work with you on this article so I am stepping back for the time being.
Hopefully more editors will want to improve this article. Right now it really sucks. Its repetitive, misrepresents the content of the few RSs and is loaded with sensationalized content from mickey mouse, piss-ant trade rags. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Heilman statement
James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is substantiated using two reliable sources. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. In fact, Heilman spoke about it publicly on a number of occasions.
Nocturnalnow, you previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo."[25]
Another source says "The speculation and the struggle for information culminated in the fact that the Community elected representatives James Heilman from the "Board of Trustees", the highest decision-making body of the Foundation, was released in December."[26]
Another source says "Wikimedia’s reluctance to detail the restricted grant, from the Knight Foundation, was a factor in the departure of community-elected WMF board member James Heilman in December."[27]
Another source says "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[28]
Another source says "Late last year, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member James Heilman was dismissed from the board. Heilman has hinted that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing."[29] You haven't explained how the sources are unreliable.
You also started a thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page titled "Doc James gives us a reality check" You commented many times on Jimbo Wales' talk page about James Heilman. You have not shown the statement is a BLP violation. But I have shown it is neutrally written and sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources you provide re: Heilman are not highest quality sources, imo, especially when a person's work, community service and community trust reputation is being talked about. Not to mention the importance of Heilman's privacy, as an individual, which even multi-national corporations are now caring about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Both sources used in the article for the claim are reliable. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it on a number of occasions.[30][31]QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that there is any reason at all to infer that the statements you refer to were intended to be publicize much less intended to form part of an encyclopedia. There is no consensus here on your assertions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The statements are made by reliable sources. They are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. You haven't given a valid reason for excluding it. There is no issue of privacy when Heilman discussed it publicly.[32][33]QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You bring up new issues here:
1 : Do you think that Signpost is a Reliable Source for Wikipedia articles? I'm not saying its not; I have not thought about it much or researched that aspect, but I am assuming you think it is a RS, is that correct?
I read the signpost articles and nowhere does James use the word "dismissal" nor should we assume that because he spoke to the community in the Signpost that he wishes what you call his "dismissal" to be permanently broadcast in a world-wide encyclopedia. I maintain it is a possible violation of Heilman's privacy and adds nothing of value to this article about a Knowledge Engine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about privacy policies but there are other reasons to exclude the Heilman content. One, the statement is a coatrack as Heilman's speculations as to why he was dismissed from the board are not directly related to the KE. Instead, his speculations are related to the WMF and the Board. His statement might belong in his own article or in an article about the WMF-community dynamic, but it's not right for this article. Two, including the statement gives it undue weight. Heilman's speculation is referenced to only two sources, and each source just repeat parts of the signpost article in a short sentence. Three, this article has an anti-WMF and an anti-KE point of view, and including the Heilman content - even in its rewritten form - contributes to that point of view. Once the article is neutral, if the Heilman content received more coverage in reliable sources, it could be included then.
I find the arguments by Nocturnalnow and 99.236.126.9 to be compelling, and so I also am against inclusion of the Heilman content. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[34]
See another source "The first response appears to have been the dismissal of board member James Heilman, who was critical of the project."[35]
Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. That is very relevant, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. There is no policy based argument to excluding the Heilman content based on the amount of coverage it has received. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. Rather than take sides the text was rewritten which stated Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense, the individual has expressed these concerns to journalists himself. I don't very much care about this topic, but I care far more about the precedent you are setting if you remove it. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, please stop adding the Heilman content. I note that you've expanded the content to include an image of Heilman, completely ignoring the existing coatracking and weight concerns. Wtf is wrong with you? Valid concerns have been expressed above that are separate from blp concerns, and those concerns mean that consensus does not exist to include the content. Just because you gave a counterargument does not mean that you can just add the content again. Stop. Just stop. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
When James Heilman insisted that the Knight Foundation grant be made public, with no success it is very relevant. It is a NPOV violation not to include. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
When he claimed that he said that, you mean. There's no independent verification for his statement. To suggest that not adding one person's speculative, unverified statement is an npov problem suggests an incomplete understanding of npov, since the content is clearly being used to push an anti-wmf POV.
You claim "There's no independent verification for his statement." The statement was verified according to RS and V. We are using independent sources. There is no unverified statement. The text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That it's being reported in reliable sources does not make it any less of a claim. Yes, the text is sourced to his own opinion as expressed in the signpost. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it must be included in an article. You know that.
You make a statement and then put the text back in without even waiting to see if my concerns are resolved. And because you're so sure you're right that the text must be included, we're edit-warring on the text even though you KNOW that when text is disputed, it stays out until the concerns are resolved. Stop. Discuss. Wait. Leave the text out while we get this sorted. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Your concerns were "There's no independent verification for his statement." But there is independent verification for the statements. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That was one recent concern and the statement is still only a speculation by one person that's been reported. I had more concerns. Go back and read what I wrote way up there.
I'm taking a closer look at the text and will make a proposal in a little while. Please can you wait for me to propose a compromise before readding the content? One thing: can we agree that the picture of Heilman is undue and should be excluded? 99.236.126.9 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on "only a speculation by one person that's been reported." is not what the source said. You are making statements not found in the source. See WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
What? I'm not saying that his statement fails reliable source verification; I'm saying it fails real-world verification. His statement has been repeated in reliable sources. However, we have no information about the truth of his statement because saying something doesn't make it true. Anyways, my main concerns were undue weight, coatracking, and pov-pushing. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
But we do have real world information that the statements are accurate.
James said the disagreement with the board arose over transparency in respect to the KE (see here and here, and Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. We have primary sources that confirm the secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
We have sources that say that he said it, yes. Those were his words, and there's no doubt that he said those things or that his statements can be reliably sourced according to Wikipedia's definition. That it can be sourced does not automatically mean that it must be included in this article, however. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
What? I think we're talking past each other. One person (Heilman) made a speculation (that he was dismissed in part because he wanted the grant application made public). Others (all those sources you listed) reported on it and repeated the speculation. That Heilman made a speculation, and the text of that speculation, are therefore reliably sourced.
And how does all that make the content suitable for inclusion? Why would one person's speculation about why they were fired belong in the article? If we had a reliable source that said Heilman was definitely, positively dismissed for this reason (instead of what we have, which is that Heilman says he was dismissed partly for this reason), then maybe it would belong in this article.
I'm not saying this content belongs nowhere, but I remain unconvinced that it belongs in this article because the article isn't about the crises at the WMF - which the KE was definitely part of - but just the KE. I can see including info about lack of transparency, community values, and community outrage, but Heilman's dismissal goes beyond that. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Heilman was dismissed from the board in part for repeatedly requesting for a copy of the documents from Lila Tretikov and for them to be made public according to the sources. Tretikov and the other board members initially refused to honor the request. The only other board member that requested a copy was Dariusz Jemielniak. He was the only person who (besides from Heilman himself) voted against the removal of James Heilman from the WMF's board of trustees. The board members that disagreed with making the documents public voted Heilmain out. If Tretikov says her resignation was related to the KE documents then we can include that as well. This is all germane to the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for that interpretation sourced to something other than Heilman's statements? If you're basing that only on Heilman's statements, it's OR because you're assuming Heilman's version of the story is the correct one.
The events you describe are issues with the WMF and board, which is a broader topic than KE and which shouldn't be covered in depth here because to do so is to make a coatrack. The controversy around the release of the documents and criticism regarding a lack of transparency and accountability belong in the criticism section (which should perhaps be renamed controversies). Unless we have reliably sourced commentary and analysis from people other than Heilman and tretikov about the role the controversy played in their departures, I don't think those events belong in this article. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, here's my proposed criticism section. I moved some stuff around, deleted a couple of McCambridge statements, and slightly reworded the Heilman content. I also removed the picture because I really do think it's undue here. What do you think?
Generally, large-scale WMF projects such as KE are discussed publicly with the Wikipedia community, but this did not happen with this project[1] as Wikipedia community volunteers were initially unaware of the existence of the KE.[2][3] Many Wikipedians expressed outrage at what they perceived to be the secrecy of the project and their lack of ability to give input, according to Wikipedia's community newsletter, The Signpost.[4] The lack of community involvement a raised questions about WMF's commitment to transparency with the Wikipedia community.[1]
Commenting on the WMF's Executive Director Lila Tretikov's reluctance to post the donor documents to the volunteer community, referencing privacy concerns, McCambridge sees "a major difference in culture and values assumptions" compared to previous Wikimedia practice.[4]James Heilman, who was dismissed from the WMF's Board of Trustees in late 2015, suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal.[2] Tretikov eventually released the Knight Foundation grant in February, 2016(?) which disclosed the first stage of the KE project.[4] Tretikov said that she regretted being so late in informing the Wikipedia editing community about the Knight Foundation grant.[5]
Longtime Wikipedia editor and journalist William Beutler told Vice Magazine's Jason Koebler, "Leaving aside whether a search engine is a good idea, let alone feasible, the core issue here is about transparency. The irony is that the Wikimedia Foundation failed to observe one of the movement's own core values [...]."[6] Critics say the project's roll out illustrates a disconnect and lack of understanding between a foundation that's increasingly run by people connected with Silicon Valley, and the volunteer community of editors whom worry that KE may reflect a change in the WMF's focus from user-generated content to one led by automated data results.[2]
Reading it, I'm still not convinced that the Heilman content isn't a coatrack because I can't find a way to connect his speculation with the KE. All we've got is him saying he was dismissed partly due to him trying to make the process transparent. But that's really about him and his view, not KE. I think a source would be needed supporting internal WMF turmoil specifically about this project, but I don't think that's out there. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this specific proposal. I don't think the section should be shortened. The section was recently expanded and may continue to expand if more sources report on the controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Are the Heilman content and the Tretikov resignation examples of WP:COATRACKing?
I would like to see a reliable secondary source that shows that the primary cause of either was a result of the Knowledge Engine. No cites of opinion pieces or primary sources, please -- I already know where to find those. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are only "reliable" in referencing the "opinion" of an individual author - nothing more. — Ched : ? 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
So far the sources are just reporting what Heilman has said but there's no analysis or confirmation from anyone else that his statement reflects reality. To suggest that his statement can be taken to describe what actually happened is OR. Both contents need additional information to be npov (otherwise the article conveys the message that it's KE that got them both booted, and we don't actually know if that was the case or if KE was just a flashpoint), but including all that content is inappropriate here as that stuff isnt actually related to KE. Therefore I think that both tretikov and Heilman contents are coatrack in this article at this time. 99.236.126.232 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
For discussion
about this
In response to media speculation, the WMF published a response clarifying its intentions: "What are we not doing? We're not building a global crawler search engine [...] Despite headlines, we are not trying to compete with other platforms, including Google. As a non-profit we are noncommercial and support open knowledge. Our focus is on the knowledge contributed on the Wikimedia projects. [...] We intend to research how Wikimedia users seek, find, and engage with content. This essential information will allow us to make critical improvements to discovery on the Wikimedia projects."[1] Matt Southern in Search Engine Journal attributed media confusion about the search engine's scope to the fact that this was "quite a contrast to the original grant application documents",[1] sentiments also echoed by James Vincent in The Verge,[2] Matt McGee in Search Engine Land[3] and Jason Koebler in Vice.[4]
^Cite error: The named reference Koebler-2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
In my view, the thing about WMF not building a "global crawler search engine" is pure diversion. Nobody said they were building a crawler and they never said they were. I struggle with amplifying this diversion in our article.
The notion of "media confusion" is also part of the WMF's spin here. Where has anyone in the media said that WMF is building a crawler search engine?
They are using these two constructs really consistently - the "crawler" thing and the "media confusion" thing. So they are responding in the media by blowing yet more smoke.
What these sources are pointing out is that there is a mismatch between the grant agreement wording and the WMF's public communications. This mismatch naturally causes confusion. I think that's a valid observation, and a theme across many sources, actually. Plus you've got to reflect the WMF's public statement – it got coverage. AndreasJN46600:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I struggle with amplifying the diversionary tactic by repeating their statements that emphasize "crawling" and the claims that the media is confused. I am not going to edit this article directly as I consider myself having a real world dispute with the WMF over this. But when I work on controversial articles, I never edit in away that expresses the spin that any party is putting on the dispute. It isn't helpful to the public, with regard to understanding what is going on. And in this case, again, nobody ever thought they were building a crawler. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
In your circles people may have not thought it was a web crawler project, but I can assure you the news articles were received in the technical community as an intent to build a crawler. One reference would be hacker news. Additionally people I know at elasic.co and elsewhere got the impression, from incorrect news articles, this would be a project to crawl the web. EBernhardson (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Per MOS the past tense is not appropriate at all in this article, it refers to a product that hasn't even been discontinued yet, and would still use the present even if it were discontinued. Past tense is reserved exclusively for deceased persons and historical events with little to no present context. Pariah24┃☏13:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The article was protected due to vandalism but the content that was restored was not vandalism. See 10:33, 4 October 2018 Hersbrice (talk | contribs) m . . (36,241 bytes) (+2,472) . . (edit summary removed) (undo | thank) (Tags: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits, Undo)[36] The content that was restored was the content was has broad consensus per the RfCs. See "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary."[37]. QuackGuru (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.