Wiktionary-l

wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org

688 discussions

Wiktionary mailing list admin needed
by Angela 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

A mail was sent to this list from the Wikimania OTRS account (I don't know who from). This bounced back to me, since I get notified about mails in the Wikimania queue, with the standard "your mail is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval", so I went to the Wiktionary queue to see whether it was still waiting, only to find that there are so many pending mails there that it froze my browser. Fire is the only registered list admin for wiktionary-l, and hasn't been active for some time, so we urgently need a new volunteer for this role. Is anyone willing to administer this list? It would basically involve deleting lots of spam and letting through the occasional mail from someone who was not a subscriber to the list (like the Wikimania one). There are more details on this at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list_administration>. Angela.

2 1

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA
by Gerard Meijssen 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Ray Saintonge wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> As to our community structure, it will evolve. Ultimate Wiktionary is >> part of that evolution. You can not seriously expect that in a >> project that doubles in size every four to six months our community >> will not be affected. UW will not be as I expect, I see >> opportunities and I try to realise them. Many of the expectations >> are dependant on what the UW community will be. It will not be like >> the Wikipedia communities, it will not be like the Wiktionary >> communities, it will be distinctly different but it will be Open and >> Free. > > > In one of your other posts you stated that some decisions about your > UW had already been taken. If a UW community is to "evolve" that will > begin when the software is usable by all who might be a part of that > community. At that time _all_ of your pre-release decisions will be > open to discussion and evolution. Anything else would be a work of > [[intelligent design]]. > > Ec > Is it not obvious that many decisions have been taken? Ultimate Wiktionary will be based on a database that has its functionality in a wiki, it will contain all words in all languages. It will have a user interface specifically for the Ultimate Wiktionary. These things have been decided. If at some stage people find that another scheme is better, there is no stopping them improving on what is on offer. If you think that the discussion starts when there is something is usable, you do not understand what software development is about. This is the time that people have to discuss what UW will be. If you do not use arguments now, if you do not think now, at that stage you will have lost your opportunity to be part of the decisions that will be taken before that time. Using words like intelligent design is funny, because it is an intelligent design that we are looking for. It will be evolution that will show us what will happen with the UW functionality and how the Wiktionary [[phenomenon]] will evolve. Thanks, GerardM

1 0

Licenses
by Gerard Meijssen 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hoi, I may get us the cooperation with the NTG the Dutch TeX usergroup. They have a resource of 222.872 correctly spelled Dutch words. This data is nominally licensed under the LGPL, just to ensure that it stays Free. They are not particular about the license; anyone is free to use it. We can host these words in the Ultimate Wiktionary. This means however that the information has to stay FREE as in everyone is to be able to use the data. It would serve us well in many ways; it would be not only an important addition to the UW it would also enlarge the UW community in an important way. Currently their data is used by the Open Office organisation among many. many others. The hosting of this type of content is one important way of making the UW relevant. It is completely in line with the objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation. I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without restrictions ? Thanks, GerardM

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA
by Gerard Meijssen 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Ray Saintonge wrote: > Wouter Steenbeek wrote: > >>> Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge >>> all >>> wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate >>> Wikibooks, etc. But that's simply for consistency's sake. >>> >>> James >> >> >> Logical, but ever so practical? A dictionary is per se about >> differences between two different languages (OK, except for >> describing unilingual dictionaries, but we're talking about >> translation dictionaries now, aren't we?). An encyclopedia is not. A >> Wikitionary consulter usually looks for a translation, and in >> Wiktionary several languages are merged already. Wikipedia always >> keeps one language. > > > The difference between two languages is only a secondary purpose for > each Wiktionary. The Wiktionary for a particular language primarily > describes the different ways in which the word in question is used > within the language. You may very well usually look to Wiktionary for > translations, but others can look for different things. > > Ec Hoi, What someone looks for in a Wiktionary is up to that someone. For someone interested in translations, etymology is of little intrest. For someone interested in spelling, a definition is of little interest. The reduction of the components of a Wiktionary is absurd. It is equally absurd to state that one function is more important than the next. Relevant is the realisation that the current Wiktionaries are as closed as any proprietary content. This means that the only medium in which Wiktionary is relevant is within an Internet-browser. To improve this will make us closer to realising the objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is why we should publish in XML specific to dictionary content or why we should publish in .dict format or RFC 2229. This will not happen with content in the current format and as such it is a dead end. Thanks, GerardM

1 0

Article on LISA
by Gerard Meijssen 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Hoi, As a result of our exploring opportunities for Ultimate Wiktionary, I was pointed to LISA the Localisation Industry Standards Association. I downloaded some information and was asked afterwards for some information. This in turn led to the question if I was willing to write an article about Wikimedia and localisation. So I did. It can be found here: http://www.lisa.org/globalizationinsider/ Thanks, GerardM

5 8

(no subject)
by Aphaia 18 Jun '05

18 Jun '05

Hi all, Japanese Wiktionary has been unlocked since Monday, June 12, just after four months locking period to restart. After re-launching, over 60 new articles have been submitted and some were speedily deleted ;-) Thank you for your help, encouragement and understanding during our hardest days and your help and cooperation for re-launching project will be appreciated as well as former ones. Valeto, -- Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com

1 0

Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary www page
by Yann Forget 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

Hi, Congratulations ! BTW, this should be sent to the Wiktionary list. I updated the portal and the statistics. Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary www page Date: Wednesday 18 May 2005 07:20 From: "James R. Johnson" To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org Hello, I just wanted to inform the list that the Anglo-Saxon wiktionary has over 100 entries! Later, James -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux

4 4

GNU-FDL and Ultimate Wiktionary
by Jimmy Wales 06 Jun '05

06 Jun '05

I think that GNU FDL is perfectly fine for Ultimate Wiktionary and there is no need to change the license. The license is perfectly compatible with the .DICT format, so there should be no problems at all. Thinking about how to import data from wiktionary in the ultimate wiktionary may pose a few puzzles with respect to FDL compliance, but I don't see any significant problems. The import script should keep track of who contributed to a chunk of data and take note of that fact. The history may be a little more problematic, and I think we will want to get advice on exactly how to do it. But changing the license to something else would require throwing away all existing work in wiktionary, which seems quite unwise to me. --Jimbo

8 18

Re: [Foundation-l] A license for the Ultimate Wiktionary
by Gerard Meijssen 04 Jun '05

04 Jun '05

Milos Rancic wrote: >(To correct myself...) > >I think that there is no need to avoid GNU FDL terms. Just put >gzipped/bzip2ed history inside of package and in all of articles >put reference (that contribution history can be found in that file). > > Hoi, Apparantly you do not understand that there are several issues that make the GNU-FDL not practical. *Wiktionary data cannot be imported properly into Ultimate Wiktionary. UW has no room for gzipped or bzipped history. It is a server side database and nobody is going to see the information in this way. *Ultimate Wiktionary will import data from many Wiktionaries, the first one could be the nl:wiktionary. Many articles have been copied to and from the it:wiktionary. Suppose an article is shared, it arrived first from the nl:wikipedia so that one rules.. right ? Now what history should we have with the article ?? From a GNU-FDL point of view it is unforseen, crazy. *When we keep all these histories, who can say it is "my" work? I contributed to it ?? *When we export content to the .dict or RFC 2229 format, this is a subset of the data that we have on a word, a concept. We have the UW history and all these Wiktionary histories. Histories for each word. Histories for possibly a file with a few fields like: "Word" "Description" "Translation" "Original source". The amount of bagage that we should carry according to the GNU-FDL is unforseen and crazy. It just does not make sense. It is also data that has no stucture. Who will ever look at it ?? My conclusion is that the current GNU-FDL does not funtion for atomic information like we will have in Ultimate Wiktionary. When it prevents the implementation of new use for the data that we have, it becomes a hindrance. The goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to make Free information available. When a license like the GNU-FDL only allows for server side information that has a static structure, I am sure that even Richard Stallman will find the arguments to ammend the GNU-FDL compelling. One crucial thing in all this is that Free information should stay Free and be accessible. The current Wiktionary data is as closed as any proprietary datacollection. This is because of its lack of structure. It cannot be used for anything but server side information. Ultimate Wiktionary intends to combine the strength of the information that we have in all our wiktionaries, it will be structured. It does allow accessibility and new innovative uses. By being Free, accessible and innovative, we will gain a much wider public, these will not only be users of our data but also providers of data. This is what we aim for. In the current nl:wiktionary we have people and organisations like FrankC and www.ziekenhuis.nl who contributed big time to the content of Wiktionary. We do need to recognise their contributions. They donated important body of works but we also have people like MARCEL and S.V.E.T who added content on a regular basis, it is important that we recognise their hard work and their contributions. They make and made it the success it is. So if anything, we should find a way to honour the members of our Wiktionary community as we move forward to an Ultimate Wiktionary. Thanks, GerardM

3 2

(no subject)
by rb_wiktionary＠boult.mailshell.com 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

>>>> I guess "old-school" is probably a good term. I have very little involvement on the technical side of things. I do find it a chore to insert a picture or a table, but I figure it out when I have to. When templates appear in an article that I am editing, I need to make extra effort just to track where some of them come from or what they mean. If I, as a person who has been here for over three years, am having trouble with this, it must be worse for a non-technical person who just wants to indulge his love of words. I too am alarmed at the proposal, as much as I have seen it. I am technical(well, used to be) 28 years in the computer industry, starting at the most technical levels of system programming, but over the years migrating to the role of helping general business users get the best out of systems, as business analyst, system designer, project manager. One thing I learned was - never let a technician design a system. It will be great for the technician's personal uses, but a huge chance it will be useless to the general users. Like Ec I find even the present level of codification annoyingly complicated. Requiring any significant level of codification from general users would just knock out 99%of the population form being contributors, asituation we cannot go towards. >From what little I have learned so far of this idea, including the complete lack of communication with the user community, the idea of introducing a new more technical Ultimate Wiktionary sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Richardb rb_wiktionary(a)boult.mailshell.com This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies. The content may reveal an address you can use.

5 5

← Newer
1
...
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
...
69
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wiktionary-l