After a long and detailed conversation regarding a contemporary struggle of leadership within the foundation the wikipedians among us started reminiscing about articles they had written. Each was a piece that fit into the world. How will those creative acts live on?
Could the foundation underestimate this sense of ownership as it speaks of a "knowledge engine" that might grind up the puzzle pieces so that they are not just interlocked but homogenized with all sparks of creativity lost? The foundation says maybe. faq 
Much written about wikipedia misunderstands the degree that articles are the product of individual efforts for which the authors maintain a personal stake even as their work is turned over to the community.
They say, "Actively highlight difficult to find knowledge and empower the ability to surface it in search, reading and editing flows."
When one speaks of knowledge flowing I am reminded of Reddy's conduit metaphor, where we put ideas into words and pipe them to each other, a notion that pervades how we talk but misleads by discarding context. wikipedia
We are surely impressed with google's ability to translate but must remember this is at its core a statistical process. Take Wadewitz's lessons, translate it to japanese, then turkish, then back to english. See how much "masterful use of both indirect speech and irony" survive. The deep learning of the statistical engine is not the complex learning of a lifetime.
New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine. signpost
Search and Destroy: The Knowledge Engine and the Undoing of Lila Tretikov. William Beutler. post
WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears. post
Lila Tretikov resigns. Wikimedia timeline of recent events. Molly White and others. post
Katherine Maher appointed Executive Director. post