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
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
A place to start might be here. This search resulted in 329 dictionaries. http://download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10000-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=src h&qt=dictionary&cn=&ca=10000
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:05 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
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
http://www.libraryspot.com/dictionaries.htm
http://www.onelook.com/browse.shtml 682 online dictionaries indexed here.
http://www.onelook.com/more.shtml more online dictionaries including "build your own" dictionary.
These may be even better... Cindy Lynn :-))
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Cindy Lynn Seeley Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:14 AM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
A place to start might be here. This search resulted in 329 dictionaries. http://download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10000-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=src h&qt=dictionary&cn=&ca=10000
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:05 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
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
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Additionally, a search at http://www.gnu.org on "dictionary" resulted in 212 matches, including implementation.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Cindy Lynn Seeley Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:34 AM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
http://www.libraryspot.com/dictionaries.htm
http://www.onelook.com/browse.shtml 682 online dictionaries indexed here.
http://www.onelook.com/more.shtml more online dictionaries including "build your own" dictionary.
These may be even better... Cindy Lynn :-))
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Cindy Lynn Seeley Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:14 AM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
A place to start might be here. This search resulted in 329 dictionaries. http://download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10000-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=src h&qt=dictionary&cn=&ca=10000
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:05 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary
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
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 17-04-2001, lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote thusly :
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.
I second that proposal. But wouldn't it slow down the creation process ?
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 ?
Best regards, kpj.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org