Hoi, I have seen it. It is not a wiki, it has a user interface that is available in several languages. But for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I had a look at the work "filosofie" and found many words that were words associated with that are clearly not, then again I was happily surprised that they had the word Jimi (a language from Cameroon). The title of the article is presumptuous, as I said it is not a wiki, you can add definitions, but you cannot change the other information. This is not necessarily bad but not being able to edit what is there ... I would say that Wiktionary is better at that. So I compared "presumptuous", and I like it that OmegaWiki shows the data in my native language. Wiktionary covers more meanings and well, if lingoz is Wiktionary done right, I do not know what went wrong. Thanks, GerardM http://lingoz.com/en/dictionary/filosofie http://lingoz.com/en/dictionary/Jimi http://www.omegawiki.org/Expression:presumptuous http://lingoz.com/nl/dictionary/presumptuous http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presumptuous On 10/3/07, David Gerard < dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

David Gerard wrote: "The editorial back-and-forth process that works so well for encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia seems less successful when applied to defining dictionary terms, a process more suited towards voting on multiple versions of a definition." Sadly, this sounds like nonsense from someone that has never considered a dictionary before. He's made the critical error of assuming that a dictionary is something that tells us what to say, and that Wiktionarians are involved in deciding what is Right and what is Wrong (as if NPOV is a concept limited to encyclopedias). In fact, we use citations to verify disputed word meanings, and are only involved in documenting all words in all languages, as they are used, not as only as they are "supposed" to be used. (spam: <http://www.dictionaryevangelist.com/2007/08/request-denied.html>) There are lots of things I would like to see improved about Wiktionary. Lots. But the premise that a wiki is not suitable for a dictionary has no merit. The premise that an unfree, commercial, bloglike one, with no apparent standards, and which I can't even fix being an alternative to Wiktionary is one that I can't even fathom. Meanwhile, an improved Urban Dictionary (of course, another "reference" I can't even fathom using), what this site looks to become, isn't what we need. I'm searching desperately for the "edit" tab to correct the mangled capitalization of "Blog Fog," the term on the "Hot Definition" on the main page, of which 98 people approved (99 now; testing confirms that I can't vote against without logging in, but I can vote for it without an account--further testing shows that even with an account you need 50 "points" for a down vote; I couldn't even do anything about blatant spam except send my comment marking it as a "mistake" off into the ether ). Apparently hotness is judged in terms of popularity, and not accuracy. Oh well, I'm off to go think up the coolest word I make up, and see if I can make it to the main page. :-) Dominic