Hello,
First, congratulation for all the already achieved great work on the wikidata project.
Now I would be interested to know more about future development, especially on interactions with wiktionaries.
I think wikidata could help to improve wiktionaries drastically, by unifying not only interlangs links, but also definitions and translations.
More accurately what I mean is that currently you often have, attached to one wiki article you have usually several definitions for each language where the word is used. But often when I seek a non-french word in the french wiktionary, looking at the native wiktionary will bring more definition than what you can find on the french article.
I saw that on the english wiktionary, the interface added a "quick add" feature, which ask user to fill translation for each meaning. That's great and I wish it would be added in all chapters. And I think that we could add even more "hey, what about translating just this little thing" feature across all dictionary by centralizing entries, so that each "word" is associated with one or several meaning by language. Then all meanings could be redistributed to all wiktionnaries, even when no translation is available for a given meaning in the local chapter. In this cas we could have an information box that would say "this word have an other meaning which wasn't yet translated in ${local_language}, if you one of the language in which a translation is available, please help us to improve the wiktionary".
What do think about such a project, could it work with wikidata?
kind regards, mathieu
This might be of interest: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
Helder
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Mathieu Stumpf psychoslave@culture-libre.org wrote:
Hello,
First, congratulation for all the already achieved great work on the wikidata project.
Now I would be interested to know more about future development, especially on interactions with wiktionaries.
I think wikidata could help to improve wiktionaries drastically, by unifying not only interlangs links, but also definitions and translations.
More accurately what I mean is that currently you often have, attached to one wiki article you have usually several definitions for each language where the word is used. But often when I seek a non-french word in the french wiktionary, looking at the native wiktionary will bring more definition than what you can find on the french article.
I saw that on the english wiktionary, the interface added a "quick add" feature, which ask user to fill translation for each meaning. That's great and I wish it would be added in all chapters. And I think that we could add even more "hey, what about translating just this little thing" feature across all dictionary by centralizing entries, so that each "word" is associated with one or several meaning by language. Then all meanings could be redistributed to all wiktionnaries, even when no translation is available for a given meaning in the local chapter. In this cas we could have an information box that would say "this word have an other meaning which wasn't yet translated in ${local_language}, if you one of the language in which a translation is available, please help us to improve the wiktionary".
What do think about such a project, could it work with wikidata?
kind regards, mathieu
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, structured data is often rather easy to transform): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary). I would appreciate a discussion with the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
Cheers, Denny
2013/3/9 Mathieu Stumpf psychoslave@culture-libre.org
Hello,
First, congratulation for all the already achieved great work on the wikidata project.
Now I would be interested to know more about future development, especially on interactions with wiktionaries.
I think wikidata could help to improve wiktionaries drastically, by unifying not only interlangs links, but also definitions and translations.
More accurately what I mean is that currently you often have, attached to one wiki article you have usually several definitions for each language where the word is used. But often when I seek a non-french word in the french wiktionary, looking at the native wiktionary will bring more definition than what you can find on the french article.
I saw that on the english wiktionary, the interface added a "quick add" feature, which ask user to fill translation for each meaning. That's great and I wish it would be added in all chapters. And I think that we could add even more "hey, what about translating just this little thing" feature across all dictionary by centralizing entries, so that each "word" is associated with one or several meaning by language. Then all meanings could be redistributed to all wiktionnaries, even when no translation is available for a given meaning in the local chapter. In this cas we could have an information box that would say "this word have an other meaning which wasn't yet translated in ${local_language}, if you one of the language in which a translation is available, please help us to improve the wiktionary".
What do think about such a project, could it work with wikidata?
kind regards, mathieu
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, structured data is often rather easy to transform): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
Nemo
Hi Denny, as Nemo pointed out, that grant is for Wikisource :-) http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_visionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
We spoke about that briefly in the Office hours: one of the main thing Wikidata could do, I think, is to centralize cross-wiki links, the very same way it centralized interlinks. I don't know how difficult could it be, but I sense this would be a breakthrough for all sister projects. We could review the Sister template, and make cross-wiki navigation much more easy and useful.
Aubrey
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, structured data is often rather easy to transform): <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWikihttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_visionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hoi, If there is one thing that would be extremely powerful, it would be combining lexical information with Commons. I presented about this in Alexandria at Wikimania and, it is still true. It makes sense to allow people to search for a paard or a cheval or a حصانhttp://www.omegawiki.org/Expression:%D8%AD%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%86. They would get pictures of a "horse".
This is what we have shown in OmegaWiki, this is functionality that fulfils a real life need. What we need is searching for pictures in Commons.
When there is lexical information in a language about a subject and, there is no Wikipedia article, we can point to the articles in another language. This can be a language we know the user knows ....
As far as I am concerned, adding interwiki links to all the other projects is nice. It needs to be done but the added functionality is minimal.
The real challenge for Wikidata is opening up data in multiple languages. THAT is what you need lexical data for. Lexical data can be found in Wiktionary and in OmegaWiki. What you can find in OmegaWiki is the proof of the pudding; this is not pie in the sky. It is feasible, it has been done. It can be done again. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 March 2013 15:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, structured data is often rather easy to transform): <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWikihttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_visionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity, something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
Commons: * easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons, use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar * more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link them to each other and to Wikidata
Wiktionary: * easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata. We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many, extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not* use the software as is, and start from scratch.
We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right place is.
So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
Cheers, Denny
2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, structured data is often rather easy to transform): <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWikihttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_visionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
Nemo
Hoi, There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for that.
What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..
For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective .... we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or neutral .... we do not have a stupid. We have singular and plural and we do not have dual like in Arabic.
When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to indicate this.
Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things that fulfil a need, that have a purpose. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.dewrote:
Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity, something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
Commons:
- easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
- more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link
them to each other and to Wikidata
Wiktionary:
- easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata. We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary< https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary%3E
I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many, extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not* use the software as is, and start from scratch.
We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right place is.
So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
Cheers, Denny
2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then
again,
structured data is often rather easy to transform): <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki%3E
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_vision<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary%3E
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following
Wikipedia
and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
Wikisource
-- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a
stricter
definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just
to
give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
Nemo
-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Thank you for the clarification, Gerard. I was indeed misunderstanding the proposal.
We need to find a central place to discuss a proposal.
2013/3/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for that.
What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..
For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective .... we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or neutral .... we do not have a stupid. We have singular and plural and we do not have dual like in Arabic.
When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to indicate this.
Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things that fulfil a need, that have a purpose. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity, something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
Commons:
- easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
- more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and
link
them to each other and to Wikidata
Wiktionary:
- easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata. We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary< https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary%3E
I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many, extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would
be
a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it
is
a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years
in
the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not* use the software as is, and start from scratch.
We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right place is.
So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
Cheers, Denny
2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
Wiktionary.
There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then
again,
structured data is often rather easy to transform): <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki%3E
There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_vision<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
That's Wikisource. :)
There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary%3E
And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following
Wikipedia
and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
Wikisource
-- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but
both
Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary).
Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like
Wikipedia;
Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the
same
way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a
stricter
definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would
benefit
a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc.
Just
to
give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it
was
decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow
and
careful planning over hastened decisions.
It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what
matters.
Nemo
-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As a side-note, the dbWiktionary (dbPedia) group also use Wiktionary-l for communications.
Amgine
On 11/03/13 14:52, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, Commons much less than Wiktionary). I would appreciate a
On the other hand, I believe Wiktionary too could be well helped with only small changes to Wikidata. Interwiki links are the same problem as on Wikipedia and could be solved in the same way. Things like words' plural, inflections etc. are very tedious to write and could be solved like Wikipedia infoboxes. It is relations between words and concepts that are the difficult problem and that might require larger Wikidata modifications, so this part could be left for the future.