Hoi,
I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
Thanks, :) GerardM
Just a stupid question....just popped in my mind...
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Ant
Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
Hoi,
I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
Thanks, :) GerardM
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support -- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support -- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
Angela.
When we have an ultimate wiktionary, it is up to the individuals that make up the wiktionary communities if they want to contribute to the ultimate wiktionary or to the existing language specific wiktionaries. My aim will be to convert the content of the existing wiktionaries in a lossless manner. I expect that the integration of all the languages will provide the synergy that will make it really cool to work on the ultimate wiktionary. Each wiktionary can decide to stop their activity once the data is included into the ultimate wiktionary.
I expect that with the first iteration of the ultimate wiktionary we will learn many lessons. My idea of the database will be to have it relatively simple in database design so that it will be possible to enhance things as we learn what can be done in a better way. Erik's timeline does include the implementation of a thesaurus. This will be based on the GEMET data. A thesaurus is a simplification of what we will have in the ultimate wiktionary but it will show us what we need in a User Interface.
Thanks, GerardM
Angela wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
So did anybody ever actually specify what Wikidata is and what its requirements are? What exactly was pitched to Kennisnet that they're offering to pay for?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:47:51 -0800, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
So did anybody ever actually specify what Wikidata is and what its requirements are? What exactly was pitched to Kennisnet that they're offering to pay for?
The basic requirements are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata with mock ups and implementation strategies. A more detailed proposal is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary#Mileston...
The features pitched to Kennisnet include those at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_ultimate_Wiktionary
Angela.
Angela wrote:
The basic requirements are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata with mock ups and implementation strategies. A more detailed proposal is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary#Mileston...
The features pitched to Kennisnet include those at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_ultimate_Wiktionary
Spiffy, thanks for the links!
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Angela wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support -- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
Gerard is full of technical solutions. Some of them may indeed be brilliant, but I don't have the technical expertise to judge. The real question lies in whether contributors whose primary interest is language will be driven away because the editing process is too complicated. One of the most important features of Wikipedia has been that anyone can learn how to edit with very little training. At one time their were passionate arguments over the use of html or wiki markup. Wiki markup was seen then as too complicated. We've gone a long way since then, but we still need to be aware that many of the contributors that we may seek are not computer geeks, but knowledgeable people in the subjects that are their passion.
I also see Gerard's proposal as directed toward the needs of translation. That's a commendable goal, but a dictionary is more than that. It is just as much a reference for people about their own language. And people writing about their own language need to feel free to do so easily without needing to be concerned about the potential effects on translations.
Also much of what Gerard says is theoretical, and very little of it gives real practical examples of how things will work Saying that a database structured on xml would be a big improvement does not mean much to those who are not intimately acquainted with xml.
As much as I've advocated for a unified Wikisource, I also advocate for separate Wiktionaries. Without getting too far into that debate now, I can at least point out that Wikisource deals with static texts that will not need to be repeatedly edited.
If Gerard wants to experiment with his ideas on some form of Wikidata project I won't stand in his way. If he wants to go from that into some kind of "Ultimate Wiktionary" he may come up with something that works. Maybe it will eventually be meaningful to migrate existing translation material there. But let's not go there until he has something practical established. The timetable for that may be considerably longer than the one which he so optimistically expresses.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Angela wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support -- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
Gerard is full of technical solutions. Some of them may indeed be brilliant, but I don't have the technical expertise to judge. The real question lies in whether contributors whose primary interest is language will be driven away because the editing process is too complicated. One of the most important features of Wikipedia has been that anyone can learn how to edit with very little training. At one time their were passionate arguments over the use of html or wiki markup. Wiki markup was seen then as too complicated. We've gone a long way since then, but we still need to be aware that many of the contributors that we may seek are not computer geeks, but knowledgeable people in the subjects that are their passion.
One of the aims of the ultimate wiktionary is to hide all the complicated stuff that you currently find in nl:wiktionary. I am on record saying that it is a crutch. (typically you use a crutch when the walking is difficult). When you CAN use it, you have learned many ISO-639 and codes by heart like I have. In the ultimate wiktionary the crutch will not be needed anymore as all the needed information will be hidden in the User Interface.
I also see Gerard's proposal as directed toward the needs of translation. That's a commendable goal, but a dictionary is more than that. It is just as much a reference for people about their own language. And people writing about their own language need to feel free to do so easily without needing to be concerned about the potential effects on translations. \
The current implementation that led to Ultimate Wiktionary was directed toward using content in multiple wiktionaries. The ultimate wiktionary is directed towards integration of the wiktionaries so that content added/changed in a language will be available to all people interested in that language. The crux ot all that I have done in wiktionary, is that 80% of wiktionary content is language independent.
Also much of what Gerard says is theoretical, and very little of it gives real practical examples of how things will work Saying that a database structured on xml would be a big improvement does not mean much to those who are not intimately acquainted with xml.
The current content of nl:wiktionary can be easily moved to it:wiktionary to hi:wiktionary or to .. and it will be correct with the exception of stuff like description and etymology. That is not theoretical, that is really practical. I have moved stuff to the fa:wiktionary (Persian) and, it works..
XML is nice. We will want an import and export mechanism. BUT the proposal that is to be implemented is not about XML, it is about making the 80% of all effort count in all wiktionaries so that when I add the 3000+ words in Papiamento with translations and everything, there will be a Papiamento resource to ALL users of wiktionary.
As much as I've advocated for a unified Wikisource, I also advocate for separate Wiktionaries. Without getting too far into that debate now, I can at least point out that Wikisource deals with static texts that will not need to be repeatedly edited.
If Gerard wants to experiment with his ideas on some form of Wikidata project I won't stand in his way. If he wants to go from that into some kind of "Ultimate Wiktionary" he may come up with something that works. Maybe it will eventually be meaningful to migrate existing translation material there. But let's not go there until he has something practical established. The timetable for that may be considerably longer than the one which he so optimistically expresses.
The one thing I am asking is: read about the proposals, think about what this tries to accomplish. Ask questions about what does not make sense. The great thing about the wikimedia projects is the importance of the community. I have a dream and, was able to accomplish something. I sincerely hope that we will find it usefull and will be happy to move forward
The current timetable is about implementing the necessary building blocks. It is split up in several milestones that will allow us to do reality checks on the way. The timetable says nothing about the conversion of all the wiktionaries and, it does not make it mandatory to move over to the ultimate wiktionary. In time, people will move over as and when they think it is usefull to do so.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
Just a stupid question....just popped in my mind...
Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
Ant
Hoi, Wikidata is in essence a building block. It enables things, the building of Wikidata will allow us the functionality of a proper wiktionary or a poper wikispecies. In itself it is not a project. To me, having the ability for hosting relational data is seperate from having yet another set of relational data. The decision of hosting a set of data is what makes a project. As far as I am aware and as far as I am concerned this is what needs community support and board approval. Hosting wiktionary and wikispecies data are things that we are committed to.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
Hoi,
I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
Thanks, :) GerardM
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi All-
I was wondering what the proper channel would be for voicing suggestions/comments about the technical design of the WikiData project. I guess this would be the WikiData discussion page on Meta, but this has not been updated in a while and I wanted to make a few comments before the Ultimate Wiktionary deadline.
Also, how will development work be coordinated? The Ultimate Wiktionary project page implies Eric will be doing all the development, and though I am happy to follow his lead (as well as let him claim the contract ;) I would like to help with development as I am preparing a project proposal that will have WikiData functionality as a prerequisite. Thanks.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
Thanks, :) GerardM
Hoi, All discussion on the WikiData proposal is explicitly welcome. When you are interested in cooperating in the development of WikiData, you are more than welcome to do so. With the details of the RFC you find the likely timetable will be. When you are interested in helping in the development of the project you are more than welcome.
The part where the GEMET database will be implemented in the Mediawiki software is included because the design and the data of this database can both be used based on the GEMET data that can be found here: http://www.eionet.eu.int/GEMET. This is a big important body of work and already has data in 20 languages, it will allow us to add content in any and all other languages and it is included because it will give us the opportunity to experiment with the user interface. The current GEMET database does have XML data available and we are hopefull that we will find people willing to help with an XML import and export module.
The development as outlined in the plan is what will be done. With more people working on the project we will be able to get better functionality. It is a project that is part of the Mediawiki environment and as such it is open for colaboration.
By not commenting before the deadline the project will start on the given date. By commenting before the deadline the project may start a week later if the comments make this a necessity. At all times comments are invited.
Thanks, GerardM
Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
Hi All-
I was wondering what the proper channel would be for voicing suggestions/comments about the technical design of the WikiData project. I guess this would be the WikiData discussion page on Meta, but this has not been updated in a while and I wanted to make a few comments before the Ultimate Wiktionary deadline.
Also, how will development work be coordinated? The Ultimate Wiktionary project page implies Eric will be doing all the development, and though I am happy to follow his lead (as well as let him claim the contract ;) I would like to help with development as I am preparing a project proposal that will have WikiData functionality as a prerequisite. Thanks.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
Thanks, :) GerardM
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org