151–160 of 192 posts
Bing cost MS $5.5 Billion in their field of expertise
http://www.geek.com/news/bing-has-cost-microsoft-5-5-billion...
So they are trying to compete using 2.5 mil dollars with software backed by multi billion dollars, hundreds thousands of servers, tons of data, thousands of developers, ML integration etc.?
Good luck with that. Many tried backed by x times more resources than this 2.5 mil, unfortunately all failed.
This was/is actually an extremely controversial project. The corporation (basically the Executive Director) pursued the grant and the idea without soliciting input or really disclosing it to the community of editors, and eventually one of the community-elected trustees was removed for questioning the lack of transparency. The community has a long list of software improvements that they'd like to see to the core platf…
> and eventually one of the community-elected trustees was removed for questioning the lack of transparency This was a hypothesis about his removal when he was initially was removed, and has since been refuted by multiple sources.
This was/is actually an extremely controversial project. The corporation (basically the Executive Director) pursued the grant and the idea without soliciting input or really disclosing it to the community of editors, and eventually one of the community-elected trustees was removed for questioning the lack of transparency. The community has a long list of software improvements that they'd like to see to the core platf…
Wikipedia needs to solve it's management issues before it starts developing new software...
Maybe Wikipedia should launch a video encyclopedia to try to provide a 5 minute video of every article, for people who like videos more than reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Curation doesn't scale and often assumes a single unifying ontology Wikipedia is a pretty big exception to that assertion. Perhaps DMOZ (a clone of Yahoo circa 1996) is not the only way to do curation. Perhaps Wikipedia could apply what has worked for Wikipedia, i.e. develop a set of POV-neutral criteria for organizing collections of links and then invite everyone to participate. It's really easy to be negative. Bu…
You make a fair point. I'm not rubbishing Wikipedia, just questioning the supposed USP. I would also point out in response to your argument that a Wikipedia article and a set of search results are apples and oranges. The article is written once then modified or evolved occasionally by (almost exclusively) humans, but very frequently read. It is intended to be intelligible, being structured and based in natural langua…
I'm imagining the edit wars and debates that take place on contentious wordings or facts in some parts of Wikipedia, but on a much wider scale involving hundreds of SEO consultants each aware that changing a particular criterion will have a quantifiable impact on their clients' bottom line. It doesn't sound like it would be fun to police.
I've read a log of the inside wikimedia links here, and I'm confused about all the talk of gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth. This is controversial because some want to pay down technical debt rather than have a small team do knowledge graph search? Okay...
$250000 != $2.5M