Hoi,

If there is one thing that would be extremely powerful, it would be combining lexical information with Commons. I presented about this in Alexandria at Wikimania and, it is still true. It makes sense to allow people to search for a paard or a cheval or a حصان. They would get pictures of a "horse".

This is what we have shown in OmegaWiki, this is functionality that fulfils a real life need. What we need is searching for pictures in Commons.

When there is lexical information in a language about a subject and, there is no Wikipedia article, we can point to the articles in another language. This can be a language we know the user knows ....

As far as I am concerned, adding interwiki links to all the other projects is nice. It needs to be done but the added functionality is minimal.

The real challenge for Wikidata is opening up data in multiple languages. THAT is what you need lexical data for. Lexical data can be found in Wiktionary and in OmegaWiki. What you can find in OmegaWiki is the proof of the pudding; this is not pie in the sky. It is feasible, it has been done. It can be done again.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 11 March 2013 15:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:

There is currently a number of things going on re the future of Wiktionary.

There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again,
structured data is often rather easy to transform):
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki>

There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
which I consider a potentially smarter first step:

<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision

That's Wikisource. :)

There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:

<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>

And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.

Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia
and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource
-- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
Commons much less than Wiktionary).

Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become

I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to
give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
careful planning over hastened decisions.

It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l