Arnold Villeneuve

Knowledge Maps

Hello Jim

I must admit that I am a little perplexed as to why you removed the Knolwedge Maps and Knowledge Views that I spent the last few days working on producing for Sir Winston Churchill from the Wikipedia website. The knowledge generation information we produced is free to all, which is in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. I am sure that I don't need to quote you on the purpose and vision of Wikipedia but one of them is the advancement of knowledge generation. Cirilab is doing just that with information provided by Wikipedia and presenting it to their user base at no charge. And we actively promoted the Wikipedia and Gutenberg Projects within the web pages that you removed. In fact, both organizations are the primiary beneficiary of this effort as 20% of the revenue generated will go to donations to both organizations. This approach is specified as desired within the Wikipedia Foundation guide. The Wikipedia rules go on to state that overt advertising must not be used in the output that is generated from the Wikipedia information and I personally have ensured that such is the case. The Knowledge View of a Wikipedia page promotes Wikipedia first and foremost with a large banner and a link back to Wikipedia!

If you do not understand how our technology works and adds value to The Gutenberg Project and Wikipedia information bases then please feel free to ask for more information and instruction. But to simply delete thematically based Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information that is provided at no charge seems irresponsible to me and not within the stated Wikipedia objectives of "generating knowledge".

I would really have appreciated an email from you asking for further details before you simply blew away four days worth of hard work. I sincerely believe that the Knowledge View of a Wikipedia page that we generate provides the Wiki reader with a valuable and different view of a Wikipedia page.

Cirilab's effort to raise money for Wikipedia:

I developed the Sir Winston Churchill Knowledge Map and Knowledge View pages so that I could begin to have discussions with Wikipedia as to what is the proper level of implementation so that we could create an Affiliate Program that would generate Donation revenue for Wikipedia. Cirilab was also going to offer to provide for free the ability of any Wikipedia Editor the ability to create a Knowledge View of their own Wikipedia Web Page as a free service!

Your actions have been very discouraging in the significant efforts that we have undergone to generate real value from the output that The Gutenberg Project and Wikipedia project produces for Internet users.

If we need to change the output associated with the Cirilab generated Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views that they are in line with Wikipedia's rules, then please do let me know what we need to do to satisfy these requirements. I will personally see to it that we comply.

But please also understand that there is a lot of work involved in creating Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Wikipedia and Gutenberg material. As such we believe that some recognition for our efforts is a fair request. In all of our knowledge generation output Wikipedia is the major benefactor and advertisor in the published material!

Hopefully, I'll get to communicate with you personally. My email is arnold.villeneuve@cirilab.com and my phone number is 613-833-0984. In this day and age of personless approach to business I have often found that many issues can be resolved quickly through personal dialog. Usually, before I toast someone I afford them the courtesy of personal communication so that they have a chance to explain their actions before I make final decisions.

In closing, I believe that Cirilab is providing a free and knowledge enhancing service to Wikipedia and Gutenberg users which is in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. I sincerely hope that we can find a balance that allows Cirilab to provide Wikipedia users with the benefits of its Knowledge Map and Knowledge View technology.

Arnold Villeneuve www.cirilab.com arnold.villeneuve@cirilab.com 613-833-0984 "We Generate Knowledge" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arnold Villeneuve (talk • contribs) .

Response

Hi Arnold, thanks for the detailed note. I'll try to explain what happened.

As you can understand, the growth and popularity of Wikipedia has made it an attractive target for spammers, so external links are being examined very critically. When a new user appears on Wikipedia and immediately starts adding external links to multiple articles, without adding any explanatory comments, then those links are very likely to be immediately removed. In fact, I was only the first editor to delete those links, so I was the one who sent you the note. The links didn't appear to be run-of-the-mill spam, but they were connected to a commercial site, so, while I did delete them, I also sent you this personal note trying to explain why they were being deleted, and where they should be discussed:

External links added to Arthur Conan Doyle and Winston Churchill

It's not clear in what way those links enhance the articles. They appear to have been added specifically to promote www.cirilab.com. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are intended to be encyclopedic, as opposed to mere lists of links. If these links are in fact non-commercial, and offer significant context to the readers of the articles, please explain their value on Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle and/or Talk:Winston Churchill. Thanks. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

After I sent that note, the links were reposted without any of the suggested discussion, and another editor deleted them for the same reason I had deleted them the first time – because they were unexplained external links from an unknown user.

One reason we can feel comfortable deleting material quickly is that it's not gone for good; every change to every article remains in the page history, and can be reinstated if necessary. Your work is not lost.

I should point out that I have no special power or position on Wikipedia; I'm just one of thousands of editors who attempt to implement Wikipedia policies to the best of our abilities and understanding. Would it be possible for you to post a note similar to what you've just sent me to Talk:Winston Churchill and Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle, explaining that you would like to add those links, and describing how they add value to the articles? Then wait a while (maybe a few hours, maybe a day or so) for reaction. If reaction is positive, then you can repost the links again with confidence that some other editor won't immediately delete them.

Please feel free to follow up with me on anything at all.

Regards -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Links removed from Winston Churchill and Arthur Conan Doyle

Knowledge Map

A Knowledge Map of Sir Winston Churchill's writings.

• Knowledge View of this Sir Winston Churchill Wiki Page
• A Knowledge Map of Sir Winston Churchill's Writings

Knowledge Maps

• Knowledge View of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Wikipedia Page
• Knowledge Map of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Work

Wiki Developer

Is there a Wiki Developer area where I can actively promote the Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views to get feedback?

I'll see if I can find something like that, Arnold...I'll look around and get back to you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this look like what you were looking for? Wikipedia:Contact_us/other -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Partnerships, joint ventures, and governmental and regulatory affairs

Contact the Wikimedia Foundation.

re: User:Cirilab

I confess I'm still baffled about what those links do (See Talk:Arthur_Conan_Doyle#External_links). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How a Knowledge Interface Works

Our technology allows a document to express itself by telling us what major and minor themes can be found in the document. With this information we do a number of things:

Knowledge View(tm)

1. We create a Knowledge Signature of the document and use it to be able to navigate the document thematically. This approach allows you to locate every paragraph in a document or on a web page that contains a theme that you are interested in. It's kink of link finding every needle in a hay stack instantly. You do this by simply clicking on the theme you are interested in within the left hand colomn of the Knowledge View page.

2. Synopsis: From the Major themes found in a document, we create a short Synopsis. The Synopsis is like a breif summary of the document based on the first paragraph that contains a Major theme. Within the Synopsis page you can click on any highlighted theme and quickly locate every paragraph that contains this theme.

3. Detailed Summary: Using all of the themes found in a document, we create a Detailed Summary. The Detailed Summary is based on the first paragraph of every theme found in the document. It is usually 20% of the total size of the original document. Again, you can click on any theme within the Detailed Summary and quickly locate every paragraph that contains this theme.

4. Entire Document: At any time if you want you can click on Entire Document and be taken to the original document location be it on a file server or a web server. In our example, Entire Document will take you back to the Wikipedia web page for Sir Winston Churchill.

Knowledge Map(tm)

Once all of the documents have been given a thematic Knowledge Signature we then build a Knowledge Map of a collection of documents. In this case of Sir Winston Churchill's 13 public domain writings on The Gutenberg Project. Thirteen documents is not a lot so imagine if you had an author or topic that contained 300 documents and you had to sort through them to find the ones that contain themes that you are interested in. That's what a Knowledge Map is all about. You start without knowing what you are looking for but you have 300 documents. You generate a Knowledge Map of them and let them tell you a) what themes are in them, b) which documents contain similar thematic content, and c) provide you with an interface that allows you to drive your research. You start with 300 documents but as you click on a Major theme it quickly returns only those documents that contain that major theme. As you drill further down through the thematic vein the number of documents returned is reduced even further. When you find the documents you are interested in you can then explore them through a Knowledge View(tm) as per above.

We actually have technology that allows you to create these views of information using a simple Right Click of your mouse.

Now, if you were a Mark Twain fan and he has over 100 books available in the public domain, do you think having access to a thematic Knowledge Map/Views of his writings would be of interest to you as just one more way to explore his writings? If you could have this provided to you free of charge would that not even make a more compelling reason to even try it?

Books are just an example we are using because they are freely available in the public domain through Gutenberg. But imagine if you just took over a new job and had to review hundreds of documents to bring yourself up to speed on a specific topic. That's what we do, we help you process the information using Information Triage techniques.

Right now, we are just trying to make this available to Wikipedia and The Gutenberg Project as a demonstration of another Knowledge Interface(tm) the the wealth of information that is already available. We do it for free and we do not charge the user for access. The concept of Affiliate Advertising embedded in the Knowledge Interfaces was to provide Wikipedia and The Gutenberg Project will additional funding.

I hope this helps. I would be more than willing to send you an evaluation copy of the software so you can try it yourself or even give you a GoToMetting to demonstrate how we create the links that I have provided.

Arnold Villeneuve 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion

Ok, here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. Your company, Cirilab is a commercial software developer. You sell commercial products (SpeedRead, MindManager, KnowledgeMap). These products do something to help navigate structured documents (I'm fuzzy on the details). You've built interfaces (maps?) (something) for the Arthur Conan Doyle and Winston Churchill articles to interface with your products. You are now posting links to these maps in the Wikipedia articles, with (I have to assume) the commercial goal of selling additional copies of your sofware. In return, you appear to offering to donate a portion of your profits from these sales to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Do I have the basic facts right here?

You do understand that Wikipedia is 100% non-commercial? It does not accept advertising. It does not offer space in encyclopedia articles in return for any financial compensation. I'm sorry, but as I understand the situation, your links appear to be unacceptable based on the guidelines described on Wikipedia:External links. This seems very clear-cut to me. If I'm misunderstanding something here, please do feel free to follow up. Regards. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Jim

You are correct to a certain degree but some of the understanding is not entirely accurate. People do not require our software to benefit from the Knowledge Interfaces we produce from Wikipedia and Gutenberg Project content. They are free to access as often as they like. This is in keeping with Wikipedia requirements. Free Knowledge For All.

Yes, Cirilab is a commercial software developer. Yes, we do sell products. Yes, we build Knowledge Interfaces and publish them. However, once the Knowledge Interface is published there is no relationship to our product any longer. We produce an thematic view of the documents using an HTML/XML interface. The links you are accessing are simply web pages. No one needs to purchase our software to the Knowledge Interfaces. Access to the knowledge interface views is free.

From what I can assess so far, the objection to posting the Knowledge Interface links on Wikipedia is due to the advertising that we included in it. Ok, so I'll take the advertising out and create a non-advertising version of the Knowledge Interfaces for Wikipedia people to access for free. Will that address Wikipedia's concerns?

Cirilab technology produces the Knowledge Maps and Views and makes them freely accessible to all so I believe it is only fair that we have the ability to place a link in the output that states that we produced the Knowledge Interface view of the information. That is the Knowledge View created by Cirilab.

Essentially, what I am asking you and other Wikipedia Editors is to provide guidance to us so that we can produce Knowledge Interfaces that are acceptable so that we can continue to produce Knowledge Interfaces of as many Wiki pages as possible, or even provide the Wikipedia community with the ability to create their own.

Having looked at the output that we provide, can you please provide me with a point by point list of changes you would like and I will make them happen.

1. We will remove all Affiliate program advertising. 2. We will ensure only Wikipedia and Gutenberg banners are used in the output that readers access. 3. We will ensure that references to Cirilab are minimal.

Does the above meet your requirements? If we do these things will we be able to begin to create External Links and maintain them on Wikipedia.

In closing, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you are giving me as well as the assistance.

Thanks and I look forward to your guidance.

Arnold Villeneuve 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of suggestions

I honestly don't know what else to tell you at this point, Arnold. Your primary motive in posting the links here (assuming you're a rational capitalist) must be to drive traffic to your site. Based on that, the links appear to fall squarely in the unacceptable category. Beyond that (and this is incidental), having clicked around on those links, I don't understand what value they offer that you don't get from simply reading the articles. You are of course free to use information from Wikipedia (so long as you honor our licensing agreements). Have you considered simply making those links available on your web site, to people who are already expressing an interest in your product? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not giving up

Yes, perhaps the current links fall squarely in the unacceptable category but I'm asking you if I change them based on what I have told you will it be acceptable? The last thing I want to do is get into a circle of "I post and you delete". I would rather come to an agreement with you as to what is acceptable and do it right the first time.

The whole idea is that you don't have to read the whole article, or being able to find just the information you want quickly and accurately without having to read the whole article, or finding a group of articles or document that have the same thematic content. That's the idea. I know that may not strike your fancy but I can assure you that a lot of people around the world use our software every day to help them deal with information overload and to find the information they need more quickly and more effectively. Not everyone wants to read the entire article and many more just want to find the information they need so they can get the job done.

Information overload is becoming a real problem in the world and all of the major countries have experienced Information Fatigue Syndrom cases over the past ten years, which was identified in the early 90's. The Internet as been a large reason for the increase in these medical cases. We are simply trying to provide a better way of accessing information and we are willing to provide this service free of charge to Wikipedia users.

The founder of Wikipedia was a capitalist as well I'll point out but he did good also. So why can't we? Our intentions are honourable but we need some guidance.

Please look at the Knowledge Interfaces we have developed from Gutenberg and Wikipedia content and tell me what you want me to change and I'll change it. It is that simple. Then, based on your suggestions, the next time I post the External links I won't get toasted. You'll be happy and I won't have spent another few days for nothing.

All I'm asking is for your help so that I can make the view of information we provide to the Wiki community right.

Arnold Villeneuve 23:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And what about Second Life?

• Second Life

I noticed that Second Life's main Article Page has full advertising and subscription pricing for their commercial services. Why are the Wikipedia rules different for them? The page states clearly that they are a privately owned commercial organization.

People even build "virtual fantasy islands" and then try to sell them for a profit. I'm not sure I understand how Second Life advances human knowledge or why it fits within the stated Wikipedia goals and vision statement. If selling virutal real estate is not a commercial venture I'm not sure what is.

So I guess I'm trying to understand why the Wikipedia rules are enforced on some but not on others? How is the free access to the Knowledge Interfaces we are providing any worse that what Second Life is doing and Wikipedia's promotion of it.

I'm still perplexed?

Arnold Villeneuve 23:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Nobody has a corporate "presence" on Wikipedia. The Second Life article, like the IBM and Apple articles, is written by Wikipedia editors who are unaffiliated with the company. Articles can be written about any company that meets the notability standards. The Second Life article, like the Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks articles, has nothing to do with promoting the company; it's an encyclopedia article intended to provide information about a widely known corporate entity. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

Jim, Second Life is actively promoted on Wikipedia to the degree that their subscription prices are even promoted with information and links on how to purchase subscriptions. Wikipedia is promoting the Second Life entry as an encyclopedia entry of fact about a corporate entity while the corporate entity is enjoying live links within Wikipedia that promote their products and services. And Wikipedia is offering this to some companies but not others because they are deemed to be "a widely known corporate entity". Without being insulting, I am sure you see my point. Wether it is a "encylopedic entry" or not, Wikipedia is still being used as a vehicle for advertising a corporate entity like Second Life. Your argument is quite frankly a "spliting of hairs" and a veiled attempt at justifying the application of a rule on one party but not on the other. So how do I find a "corporate friendly Wikipedia Editor" to lobby my product on the Wikipedia website?

I think you see my point. If you are going to allow Second Life, IBM, Apple, and other corporations to have entries on entries on Wikipedia then I believe you have a responsibility to level the playing field and allow all corporations to have a presence. Why would Wikipedia descriminate against a company that is introducing new and upcoming technology that could change the world and deal with information overload? It seems an odd choice to me.

But we are digressing from the questions that I have been asking of Wikipedia Editors which is:

What do I need to do to make our Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views acceptable so that I can post them within the External Links of a Wikipedia page? An answer to this question would be appreciated. If you cannot provide it then I would ask that you pass it on to other Wikipedia Editors so that we can get guidance, make changes to our approach, and move onwards so that Readers can benefit from our technology, for free!

Why a small company like Cirilab is discriminated against over a company like IBM or Apple is beyond me. Why can't we have a Wikipedia Editor like you that is not affiliated with our company create a Wikipedia article about Cirilab within which our technology and our services and product prices are introduced? The fact that Second Life, IBM, and Apple can and we cannot seems a little un-democratic and un-American to me and I suspect many people would agree with me. But I'm from Canada so I see how exceptions can be made.

No further follow up is required as I will persue this issue through other means within Wikipedia.

In closing, I sincerely appreciate all that you have done and the time you have taken on this matter. Your dedication and volunteerism to Wikipedia is very commendible and I appreciate again the time you have dedicate to me.

Arnold Villeneuve 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, and I can imagine that it might feel like discrimination. The important point is that Second Life is already well-known; it's possible to write a neutral, independent, encyclopedic article about it. That tends not to be true of very small companies, particularly startups. Nor is it possible to know that a particular startup will eventually become notable. Wikipedia doesn't attempt to make such predictions; we only write about people, organizations, things, and ideas that are already well-known. If it helps, I can direct you to some of the core standards of Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: your post

Sorry, but I have no clue what you're talking about. That vandalism warning was not given to you, but an IP anonymous user, for this edit, which is clearly vandalism and has nothing to do with whatever you were talking about (as far as I know). Am I missing something here? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My Sincere Apologies

I saw your comments in My Watchlist and thought they were directed at me and my recent posting of Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Sir Winston Churhill's writings. I see from the link about "Sponge Bob" and "Waffles" that there are idiots on the loose bent on cheapening the value of Wikipedia.

However, given that you are obviously a very committed Wikipedian I would sincerely like to get your advice, comments, suggestions, guidance on the Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views that we produce. Yes, I know we need to remove the advertising and I will do this. But is there anything else I need to to so that we are able to generate these Knowledge Interfaces for Wikipedia and Gutenberg users to freely access during their research.

Please see my post at *Knowledge Maps for more information.

Thank you.

Arnold Villeneuve 01:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)