Andrew Venier wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
A stupid question, probably, but...
Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing Wiktionary?
That's not clear to me, at least. I think the whole discussion got off on the wrong foot because of the strident tone in the article. e.g.:
"The current Wiktionaries will be converted to the Ultimate Wiktionary."
This can easily be understood to mean "Ultimate Wiktionary will replace the current Wiktionaries."
I didn't know in any detail of UW plans before reading this article. The way many such declarations were made, the message I got from the article (and some of the follow-up discussion) was: "The relevant decisions have already been made by those who matter. This is a _fait accompli_. Now if everyone else would kindly step out of the way and comply with what we have decided."
Hoi, The conversion has nothing to do with replacing but with the necessary steps needed to prepare the data to fit the mold of the UW. The end of the Wiktionaries will come either as a personal choise or as a group choise. It is not up to me to end a Wiktionary out of its misery; it is up to its community.
The discussion about UW has been developping for something like a year now. As a result there has been a lot of discussions and there have been things that are decided. This is inevetable when you drop into something that is already quite old. The "those who matter" are those who were there and who were thinking about this and were positive about the idea; we defined what it should have, asked for a proposal, found the funding and we did ask the WMF board for the green light to have this show on the road.
It is therefore normal that some issues have been decided in one way or other. However there are plenty of issues that need discussion. There is plenty of ideas written up on Meta. If you are willing to work with us in stead of only be "sceptical" you can influence what the Ultimate Wiktionary will be like.
Thanks, GerardM