I very much appreciate OmegaWiki - it has been a trailblazer for many of the ideas in Wikidata, and as you say, it is the granddaddy in many ways. OmegaWiki has been extensively looked into and the results from that have directly flown into the current proposal. The write up of that analysis can be found here:On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:Hoi,Please do appreciate that OmegaWiki, originally WiktionaryZ, really wants to be considered in all this. It is the grand daddy of Wikidata and it does combine everything you would want as far as lexical data is concerned.Thanks,GerardM_______________________________________________On 8 May 2015 at 18:18, Denny Vrandečić <vrandecic@gmail.com> wrote:I very much agree with Lydia and Nemo that there should not be a separate Wikibase instance for Wiktionary data. Having a single community in a single project, and not having to vote for admins here and there, have two different watchlists, have documentation be repeated, policies being rediscussed, etc. sounds like a smart move. Also, the Item-data and the Lexical-data would be much tighter connected than with any other project, and queries should be able to seamlessly work between them.The only reason Commons is proposed to have its own instance is because the actual multimedia files are there, and the community caring about those files is there and should work in one place. If there was only a single Wiktionary project, it might also be worth to consider having the structured data there - but since there are more than 150 editions of Wiktionary, a centralized place makes more sense. And since we already have Wikidata for that, I don't see the advantage of splitting the potential communities.On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:35 AM Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca@gmail.com> wrote:2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>:
> +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the Wikimedia
> projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often forced
> innatural divisions.
>
> Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases) link
> to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It makes no
> sense to make connections between them harder.
I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.
TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
examples.
Long version here:
In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
words.
Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
nuts.
Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.
I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.
In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
informations just in one database?
This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
efforts and doubling the community).[2]
Sorry for the long post. :)
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613
[2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this
is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data
that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%.
I just want to make clear my concept (heh).
--
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l