Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity, something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
Commons:
* easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons, use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
* more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link them to each other and to Wikidata
Wiktionary:
* easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many, extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not* use the software as is, and start from scratch.
We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right place is.
So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
Cheers,
Denny