Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
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.
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
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
2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
> 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<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<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/El…
>
>>
>>
> That's Wikisource. :)
>> There's this discussion on Wikdiata
itself:
>
>>
<https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<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
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 |
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.