Hello,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
Agreed.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no, because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
This is not actually the case. There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at least simply providing hosting. It stalled because the code needed a security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to put some time into that. The OW editors and dev were very interested in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and translations.
Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the criteria for requesting WMF adoption. * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the scope of free knowledge * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles. * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to dedicate themselves to.
Regards, Sam.