Knowledge Engine (search engine)
[3] Its goal was to protect user privacy, to be open and transparent about how its information originates, and to allow access to related metadata.
[2] An initial blogpost by WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov about the project did not address why the original proposal was so much broader than an internal search engine.
[2] The grant application stated that it would "create a model for surfacing high quality, public information on the internet", competing with commercial search engines.
[2] As early as May 2015, community members asked about the concentration of staff in a new "Search and Discovery" department, though public plans made little or no reference to this work.
[1] After a year, the WMF was to evaluate development to date, and at the close of the grant, set plans for the project to continue to the second stage.
According to Vice, "the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that finances and founded Wikipedia, is interested in creating a search engine that appears squarely aimed at competing with Google.
"[1] Jimmy Wales stated that suggestions that the WMF is creating a rival to Google are "trolling", "completely and utterly false", and "a total lie",[2][19] while allowing that the Knowledge Engine might in time include academic and open access sources in its search results.
[7] Matt Southern in Search Engine Journal attributed media confusion about the KE's scope to the fact that this was "quite a contrast to the original grant application documents",[8] an assessment echoed by James Vincent in The Verge,[9] Matt McGee in Search Engine Land,[20] and Jason Koebler in Vice.
Wikimedia's public story—that it was never working on a search engine—was directly contradicted by a grant proposal made to the Knight Foundation and leaked internal documents.
"[23] Commenting on the reluctance to share the grant documents with the community, referencing privacy concerns, McCambridge saw "a major difference in culture and values assumptions" compared to previous Wikimedia practice.
[23] McCambridge said that "the power of important strategic decisions" here seemed to rest "between funders and the top of the organizational hierarchy" and was "not shared with volunteer editors.
[15] 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 ...."[21] UK Wikipedia editor Ashley van Haeften told Ars Technica via e-mail that "Lila, Jimmy, and the rest chose to keep the project and the Knight Foundation application and grant a secret until the projects were underway for six months, and even then this only came to light because it was leaked.
"[1] Disagreements about the project, and the response to the resulting controversy, led to many WMF staff members departing,[26][27] culminating in Tretikov resigning on February 25, 2016.
