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.
1. 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.
2. 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out of date for understanding the meanings of words has introduced a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.
3. "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