(Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1]) During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me "Take it!" :) My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He has complained that philologists like more open form for writing dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the multilingual Wikisource. And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some software improvements of Wikidata extension. [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki * * * As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community should discuss about it. [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual dictionary based on MediaWiki extension [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]]. No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At the other side, the project would get much more attention as a Wikimedia project. Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project. [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project, doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project. == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki == === Advantages === * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of entries. * It is structured formally. * ... === Disadvantages === * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries. * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should make it closer. * ... == How to adopt OmegaWiki == * Instead of all Wiktionaries. * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for multilingual Wikisource. * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities) * ...? == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki == === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries === * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features. * Fixing bugs in software if needed. * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs. * Importing all data from Wiktionaries. === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries === * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features. * Fixing bugs in software if needed. == Licensing == OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well). * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions, which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license. * ... [[Category:Requests for comments]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

(Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1]) During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me "Take it!" :) My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He has complained that philologists like more open form for writing dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the multilingual Wikisource. And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some software improvements of Wikidata extension. [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki * * * As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community should discuss about it. [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual dictionary based on MediaWiki extension [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]]. No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At the other side, the project would get much more attention as a Wikimedia project. Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project. [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project, doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project. == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki == === Advantages === * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of entries. * It is structured formally. * ... === Disadvantages === * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries. * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should make it closer. * ... == How to adopt OmegaWiki == * Instead of all Wiktionaries. * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for multilingual Wikisource. * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities) * ...? == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki == === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries === * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features. * Fixing bugs in software if needed. * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs. * Importing all data from Wiktionaries. === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries === * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features. * Fixing bugs in software if needed. == Licensing == OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well). * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions, which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license. * ... [[Category:Requests for comments]] _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

(Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])