Hello Wikipedians,
How do I reconcile situations when I write about, for instance,
human heart and reptile or amphibian hearts ?
Wouldn't the links clash ? Am I supposed to write [[Heart - human]] and
[[Heart - reptile]] ?
Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Piękna kobieta jest rzeką w której toną mędrcy.
Czestochowa, Poland ... | Przysłowie perskie
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl
Hello Wikipedians,
Please I'd like to know what is the the audience we are targeting.
It is, I think, of vital importance because if I write an article
for Wikipedia about, let's say, brain tumours am I to write for
general public with due simplification or as close to recent
scientific advances as possible ?
Is there a policy on that issue ?
In my opinion it would be inadvisable to produce a mixture of both
because readers/surfers could easily get confused reading closely
related articles.
Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Oto para idealna, on Amor, ona amoralna. Jan
Czestochowa, Poland ... | Sztaudynger
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl
I think Wikipedia's logo is groovy, but it says nothing about the fact
that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That was my first thought. Then I
looked at a page and imagined that I had just stumbled across it on the
net, and had no idea what it was about. It is simply not immediately
obvious that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!
So, maybe what we could do is have a logo that says that Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia. At the same time we might adopt a slogan, something like
"The user-created encyclopedia." Ideas?
Larry
The more I think about it, the less I like my own idea. The
dictionaries available on the net now are great resources, even if
they are a bit thin on technical detail. That kind of technical
detail is exactly what Wikipedia/Nupedia are designed to create, and
splitting the project further will surely result in duplication of
effort and less cross-linking. Furthermore, it reinforces the
distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" which I still see
as an artificial one.
Here's another suggestion: once we get version 0.92 of the Wiki
software, Cliff promises us parentheses. We can recommend that
information about words themselves be placed in pages
like "Mathematics (word)". That page can go into excruciating detail
about the etymology of the word, various senses, and usage (perhaps
seeded by the now-PD 1913 Webster or the soon-to-be-PD 1928 OED),
while the page "Mathematics" treats the subject of the word's primary
sense, so that ad-hoc links go to the right place. These primary
pages can contain links to the (word) page if appropriate.
0
> On a slightly different subject. Over several months I have gathered
> some 500 medical abbreviations. Where would they fit ? In wikipedia ?
> In the Wiktionary ? Or in a stand-alone abbreviation Wiktionary ?
umm, just an etymology point/question. wouldn't "wikition-ary"
mean 'things belonging to or connected with wikition'?
isn't the idea captured by the term "dictionwiki"?
--sorry, I just got out of a philosophy class and I may be overly
analytic.--
>On a slightly different subject. Over several months I have gathered
>some 500 medical abbreviations. Where would they fit ? In wikipedia ?
>In the Wiktionary ? Or in a stand-alone abbreviation Wiktionary ?
Certainly a Wikipedia page (or set of pages) with the list would be
useful. Also, I have found it useful to make subject-specific jargon
words subpages of the subject, which makes them easy to use as ad hoc
links in other subpages without interfering with top-level pages.
See, for example, the Wikipedia "poker" pages. This might not work
as well for abbreviations, though, since they may not be used for ad
hoc links as much (one presumes that most Wikipedia texts on medical
subjects will use unabbreviated terms since there are no space
limitations).
0
I can see three major advantages of a Wiktionary over a traditional
online dictionary, and several disadvantages. On the positive side,
(1) it would not be constrained by space limitations, so it could be
completely unabridged, contain many examples and citations, and be
more clearly written with fewer abbreviations etc., (2) it could take
advantage of the specialized knowledge of readers beyond what
lexicographers would be interested in, especially useful for
technical terms that many dictionaries, frankly, get just plain
wrong, and (3) it would be open content.
The major disadvantage, as Rose points out, is that Wikification puts
at risk a lot of good research by lexicographers, and would sacrifice
the their credibility. It would also suffer Wikipedia's depth-versus-
breadth problems, and probably encourage production of lots of
frivolous content for slang-of-the-moment and such.
Perhaps something like a user-annotated but not directly editable
version? The dictionary could be seeded from a credible paper
dictionary source and the main entries protected from editing;
then "discussion" pages attached to each entry (and free-form new
entries) could be added to by users, and some formal editing process
could be used to update the formal entries when appropriate from the
information gathered.
Just an idea.
0
Hi,
My only suggestion is that whatever dictionary you
use as base should be current. Part of what "standard
usage" means is "current usage."
You might have sections for "new words" and a place
to add unusual, but fairly main stream uses of common
words.
That would put new words, that is "coined words"
say alphabetically at the end. New usages could be added
to the main entries in the read-write area. Of course,
such usages would be better documented with the source,
sort of like the OED, allowing all media as sources.
Just a suggestion.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> I like LDC's variant on the idea. The original (public domain)
> version could be held sacrosanct. Visitors could leave commentary,
> add new meanings, and even add new words. (I don't think any public
> domain dictionaries will have a definition of the word 'sendmail', for
> example.) But the new stuff would always appear slightly separated
> from the original.
>
> I don't think this should be a "ghetto" for too-short wikipedia entries,
> but a separate thing. And I think that the software should be as simple
> and easy to use as wiki software, but made especially for this project.
>
> I could write a super simple version pretty quickly.
>
> Does anyone know where I can get a sensibly-delimited public domain dictionary
> to get started? I know that one exists somewhere.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
>
> --
> *************************************************
> * http://www.nupedia.com/ *
> * The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi,
I am wondering what the purpose of a wiki
dictionary is. A dictionary normally gives
the "standard" definition of a word, based on a great
deal of research, the pronunciation, using that
dictionaries own guide, an etymology in some
dictionaries, and examples of usage, in some
dictionaries.
Are we in a position to determine "standard" usage
and, if so, on what basis?
There are numerous online dictionaries with good
reputations. What can we do to improve on this?
Is this a place to "dump" entries that are
definitional and no more?
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> We could make www.wiktionary.com -- a wiki-based dictionary. I probably
> wouldn't want to work much on it myself, but other people might.
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l