On 28 March 2016 at 17:48, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I understand you are currently only working on internal search,
representing stage 1 of this project. But does the long-term vision of the
subsequent stages still include things like –
1. incorporation of non-Wikimedia sources in search results,
Potentially. However, it's a vague idea, and we've got a long way to go
before this could be seriously considered, so we're not actively working on
it. Right now we have a lot of information even within Wikimedia sites
which is surfaced poorly; surfacing such information is an important part
of Discovery's narrative for FY2016-17
2016 - June 2017). I intend for Discovery to work on improving that problem
2. an open source knowledge engine like IBM's
Watson (i.e. an answer engine
based on structured data),
does a pretty good job of this already, and it's
backed by Wikidata. If you want to learn more, you can read the blog post
check out the website of the creators <https://projetpp.github.io/>.
In the long term, I could see something like this being incorporated into
search on our sites if it's good enough. Like the above, it's also a long
way off, and we're not actively working on these efforts.
3. an open source search engine,
Clearly yes, because we're actively building a search engine for Wikipedia
and our work is open source. If you actually mean "a general purpose web
search engine", then this question is already in the FAQ
which you referenced, and the answer is no. I presently don't see how
Discovery could offer something worthwhile to users here, especially with
projects like Common Search already working on the problem.
4. public curation of relevance (i.e. volunteer-based
Yes, if users are interested. This is an incredibly early idea that is not
fully fleshed out; we don't know how we would achieve something like this
right now. A naïve example of how we could do something like this is by
boosting the score of certain search results based on the presence of
templates on the page. The reality would likely be something significantly
more complex than this.
So, in short, many things are potentially on the table, but they're early
ideas which are not actively being explored, and in exploring them we may
decide not to do them. Sorry if that's not definitive enough of a
statement, but roadmaps are intentionally not set in stone so as to be
flexible and iterative.
Lead Product Manager, Discovery