On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Chris Koerner <ckoerner@wikimedia.org> 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.- JHow 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. :)Inspired by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_a_Librarian Yours,Chris KoernerCommunity LiaisonWikimedia FoundationOn Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan@wikimedia.org> wrote:I do! When it seems readable and useful, and I know that it exists. And when I have something riding on the outcome. - JOn Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Deborah Tankersley <dtankersley@wikimedia.org> 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 tankersleyirc: debtProduct Manager, DiscoveryWikimedia FoundationOn Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan@wikimedia.org> 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."--On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Trey Jones <tjones@wikimedia.org> 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.—TreyTrey JonesSoftware Engineer, Discovery
Wikimedia FoundationOn Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Chris Koerner <ckoerner@wikimedia.org> 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."Yours,Chris KoernerCommunity LiaisonWikimedia Foundation_________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
--
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery