Stan Shebs wrote:
Has anybody thought about wiki databases? By these I mean applying the wiki idea to data that is most naturally organized as a database rather than as plain text. In practice, I visualize the edit page as resembling a list of smaller text boxes, and then having one or more display formatters to build a readable page from the raw database entry. The closest I could see online is a TWiki plugin, but it didn't look like it had a special UI.
I'd have to see this in action before I pass judgement.
- I've been working on a scheme to handle WP's thousands of
bibliographic references. The idea is to have a sort of combination of BibTex and the Image namespace; each referenced work gets an entry with a name, you fill in fields of the entry, then just mention the name as something like [[Ref:Arnett2001]] in articles and the software puts out formatted author/title/ISBN etc. However, the ability to format consistently depends on the reference's data being stored in database style, while still being available for editors to fix up.
The idea is interesting, and the bibliography on many articles is weak to say the least. Developing the data table will be the challenge. There may not be a conflict with Arnett2001 but [[Ref:Smith2001]] could apply to nearly any topic.
- Wiktionary. Dictionary entries are database entries, not free
text. There should be a popup menu to add/choose the language for which you're writing the definition, a list of definition numbers that can be xref'ed properly, popups for parts of speech, and so on.
That's the simplistic view of dictionaries. The definition numbers should be soft numbered to allow for the insertion of additional definitions. Some of it may work. Understanding the definition of a word and all its many connotations is never just a black and white process. One of the Wiktionarians who felt that Shakespeare quotes were out of date for understanding the meanings of words has introduced a list of words appearing in the Sherlock Holmes stories. I can envision eventual links between Wiktionary and Wikisource (perhaps the other projects too) that could give examples of actual usage.
- "Wikistamp". As part of my philatelic obsession, I've built up a
database of worldwide postage stamp data. It now includes info on about 150,000 types - about half of all in existence - but the details are often incomplete, and wiki seems like a good way both to publish what exists and to enlist others in filling in, plus links to WP could have info on the stamps' subjects. However, I've only been able to do this singlehandedly because I have custom C code that does extensive validity checking - it knows that "ltolgrn" is a valid shorthand for the color "light olive grenn" but "grnollt" is not, that "1sh6p" is only valid for UK stamps before 1971, how to apply ranges of defaults, and so forth. A wikified version of this data would need to have the rules continue to be enforced by software.
This one is a very interesting idea. I've thought about it before. I've thought about it in terms of a whole new cataloging system that could challenge the proprietary and closely protected system that Scott uses in North America. This would involve a three level system that would be suitable for beginning, intermediate and advanced collectors. A Wikibook stamp catalog maybe?
Ec