I created some time ago a template on meta for a
glossary and applied it
to very basic terms [1], mainly with translation in mind. Another idea is
to use the translate extension on [[meta:Glossary]] to uniformize the
presentation accross languages and to use the translation memory (although
it don’t apply to parts of messages AFAIK).
That would be more like the idea of a
<https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Terminology>
Nemo
Possibly it can also filled
Extension:WikimediaMessages with some other very basic Wikimedia terms
like "editor", "FDC", "GAC", "privacy policy" to
directly reuse these one
in translations, but it would probably demands a lot of maintenance for
all languages with declensions.
Related to the Wiktionary, some of the terms have a place on the
Wiktionary (analytics, API, backlog, boldness, etc.) but certainly not
all. Given this fact and your suggestion of using Wikidata, I had the idea
of an application based on Wikidata/Omegawiki to create custom
dictionaries, which could hold many specialized lexicons (e.g. wikispeak,
internet slang, etc.). I am going to the [[Wiktionary future]] page :)
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_teams/fr/English-French_Wikimed…
~ Seb35
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Guillaume
Paumier
<gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The use of jargon, acronyms and other abbreviations throughout the
> Wikimedia movement is a major source of communication issues, and
> barriers to comprehension and involvement.
>
> The recent thread on this list about "What is Product?" is an example
> of this, as are initialisms that have long been known to be a barrier
> for Wikipedia newcomers.
>
> A way to bridge people and communities with different vocabularies is
> to write and maintain a glossary that explains jargon in plain English
> terms. We've been lacking a good and up-to-date glossary for Wikimedia
> "stuff" (Foundation, chapter, movement, technology, etc.).
>
> Therefore, I've started to clean up and expand the outdated Glossary
> on meta, but it's a lot of work, and I don't have all the answers
> myself either. I'll continue to work on it, but I'd love to get some
> help on this and to make it a collaborative effort.
>
> If you have a few minutes to spare, please consider helping your
> (current and future) fellow Wikimedians by writing a few definitions
> if there are terms that you can explain in plain English. Additions of
> new terms are much welcome as well:
>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Glossary
>
> Some caveats:
> * As part of my work, I'm mostly interested in a glossary from a
> technical perspective, so the list currently has a technical bias. I'm
> hoping that by sending this message to a wider audience, people from
> the whole movement will contribute to the glossary and balance it out.
> * Also, I've started to clean up the glossary, but it still contains
> dated terms and definitions from a few years ago (like the FundCom),
> so boldly edit/remove obsolete content.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l