Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge all
wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate
Wikibooks, etc. But that's simply for consistency's sake.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:16 AM
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA
I'm also a bit wary about merging all the wiktionaries into one
mega-wiktionary. The idea about the user-interface appearing in one's
preferred language is interesting though. There are different wiktionaries
for the same reason there are different wikipedias. As Mark and others have
been telling for the past several months that I've contributed to wikis, we
have these multitudinous
wikipedias/wiktionaries/wikibooks/wikiquote/wiki-... sites to encourage each
language, and the thesauri become more useful and more accessible to people
through the community involvement of the users on each wiki. The German
wiktionary grows through the efforts of those who contribute to it, as do
the English, Russian, etc. Let the individual wiktionaries apply the GEMET
if they so choose, using the terminology they choose. Individuals can make
a better choice than some centralized monolith can, and often faster, and
better. And as far as I have seen, it's the individual with conviction that
improves the wikis and spreads the concept to new languages, people, and
articles. Some of the things you want in this Ultimate Wiktionary can be
done in the individual wiktionaries, if the users want it.
And " and thus resulting in increased trade opportunities for the EC." -
Wikis are about more than simply Europe. There's more to the world than
Europe, and the wiktionaries are not simply there to benefit Europe and its
trade opportunities. Sounds like the kind of cultural imperialism the US
gets accused of.
Later,
James
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:30 AM
To: wiktionary-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
As a result of our exploring opportunities for Ultimate Wiktionary, I
was pointed to LISA the Localisation Industry Standards Association. I
downloaded some information and was asked afterwards for some
information. This in turn led to the question if I was willing to
write an article about Wikimedia and localisation. So I did. It can be
found here:
http://www.lisa.org/globalizationinsider/
The following is what he says there
Using this imperfect system of templates has
taught us that 80% of
the lexicological content can be expressed using templates.
What evidence is there of this? Sure, we can get closer to that when
translations are viewed as mechanical acts and we can ignore all
subtleties of language. In reality such an attitude only goves a lot of pap.
The next step will be for us to combine all the
language-independent content in a database.
That's a very small part of the content.
Our challenge will be to translate the user
interface in as many
languages as possible.
That much is already being done without Gerard's UW
This is the first hurdle to make the Ultimate
Wiktionary
accessible in any language. The next step is to encourage people
with language knowledge to contribute to the Wiktionary by
providing descriptions and etymological information for various
terms.
This too is already being done in the English Wiktionary. That's what
lexicography is all about.
The Ultimate Wiktionary will become extremely
relevant, based on
the special content that it will contain. For example, we plan to
include the GEMET thesaurus <http://www.eionet.eu.int/GEMET>, the
ecological resource of the European Community (EC).
Although I have no doubt that this is useful information there should be
no preference given to EC terminology. It needs to be made clear that
different terminology used in countries which share a language with some
member of the EC will be on an equal footing.
It will also be possible for users to add content
in other
languages, making the original thesaurus even more accessible and
more valuable to more people. We hope to be able to cooperate with
organizations such as the EC in order to host other glossaries and
thesauri. As everyone is invited to contribute content, we
envision this content being translated into many more languages
and thus resulting in increased trade opportunities for the EC.
This looks like some kind of hidden agenda. Many of us have resisted any
appearance of being dominated by the thinking and ideas of the United
States. Any attempt to impose EC dominance should be resisted just as
strongly.
The current Wiktionaries will be converted to the
Ultimate
Wiktionary.
You say this with far too much conviction. At other times you appear to
make the prediction that participants in the various projects will see
your UW as so great that they will melt into your arms. As a sceptic I
can accept that statement. It allows me to wait until there is something
real to comment about; it allows others with more technical experience
to amend your software to suit the needs of Wikimedia. I cannot and will
not accept your flat out statement that it "will be converted" any more
than I can suspend rationality long enough to accept Christ as my
personal saviour.
This means that people will have access to the
Dutch Wiktionary
with many words in Papiamento, the Italian Wiktionary with many
Neapolitan words, and the Kurdish Wiktionary with words in many
different Kurdish dialects. The goal with the Ultimate Wiktionary
is to overcome the fractured nature of individual Wiktionaries. By
combining them into one central repository, people will be able to
access a much greater variety of content, thus enabling the
Ultimate Wiktionary to be greater than the sum of its separate
Wiktionary parts.
This is in sharp contrast to what you said in other parts of the article
Contrary to what the typical LISA Member has
available, we do not
have an organizational structure that decides what to do next. We
do not have policies that determine what content is to be
available in all Wikipedias. We do not translate content as a rule.
or again
As the projects grow, we find that they have
different values and
a different view of "the Truth." These are the issues where
culture comes into play.
What you praise here about the Wikipedias you would condemn in
Wiktionary. The difference in values and cultures is just as strong in
Wiktionary as it is in Wikipedia. It needs to be respected just as much.
Ec
PS: It is not my usual habit to crosspost my comments, an I seriously
considered posting this on only one of the lists, but since Gerard has
chosen to put his POV on three lists it seemed appropriate that at least
the initial rebuttal should be similarly distributed.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l