Hi,
Lately, I have started wondering why we don't have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one to deal with English, say, which could be used for people interested in working on English words in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning Romance languages' participles underway in en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
I see the same discussions concerning various details on certain Swedish words being held on both sv: and en: - and in how many more places are these words discussed without me noticing because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and perhaps unable to understand the language in which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else) familiar with other wiktionaries could point out how the same problem may have been solved already in this second wiktionary, would I only know about the discussion...
Someone found out a while ago that several wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same issue over and over and over again, once in each wiktionary where this user found this particular error.
Though I know meta - in theory at least - has been multilingual for quite some time, I'm not very active there and hence don't really know about how successful (or not) their attempts to deal with large numbers of extensive multilingual discussions have been. (Perhaps someone could enlighten me?)
Of course I understand that there are some serious complications with any attempt of a "multilingual discussion" - maybe most importantly the continuous need to translate things, but I guess there also will be issues with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange things in very different manners.
Now the question is: would anyone be interested in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of their favourite language if it took place in meta or on another site than they ordinarily work on? Or would such an attempt be considered as an attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how "my" wiktonary is run?
Comments?
Regards, \Mike
(p.s. This actually makes me regret that we basically decided to split the wiktionaries according to the user interface language and not according to "content language", way back in 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point crying over spilled milk.)
I'm \Mike.
You'll find me at [[wikt:sv:Användare:Mike]], [[wikt:en:User:Mike]] and elsewhere.
__________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
\Mike wrote:
I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning Romance languages' participles underway in en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
I'm sure it will. But with an entirely new cast of characters, and perhaps they will find different byt equally valid solutions
I see the same discussions concerning various details on certain Swedish words being held on both sv: and en: - and in how many more places are these words discussed without me noticing because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and perhaps unable to understand the language in which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else) familiar with other wiktionaries could point out how the same problem may have been solved already in this second wiktionary, would I only know about the discussion...
The discussion between those who are already fluent in Swedish will be far different from corresponding discussions on other projects. The things about the language and its culture which one takes for granted when raised in that language are not at all obvious to those who learned about the language later in life.
Someone found out a while ago that several wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same issue over and over and over again, once in each wiktionary where this user found this particular error.
That sort of thing is inevitable. Would you have understood what they were talking about in Gaelic language comments? It does not get any easier when the language is non-ino-European.
Of course I understand that there are some serious complications with any attempt of a "multilingual discussion" - maybe most importantly the continuous need to translate things, but I guess there also will be issues with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange things in very different manners.
Being able to arrange things differently will be important to the longevity of the wiktionaries. If different approaches are allowed to flourish, they will be a constant source of fresh ideas for the others.
Now the question is: would anyone be interested in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of their favourite language if it took place in meta or on another site than they ordinarily work on? Or would such an attempt be considered as an attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how "my" wiktonary is run?
I don't think it would even get as far as complaints about outsider actions. People would just not bother to read comments in other languages. Given the long-windedness of many Wikimedians providing translation for those who might be interested would not be practical. Already there are frequent and continuing requests for translating documents that are important to Wikimedia in general.
(p.s. This actually makes me regret that we basically decided to split the wiktionaries according to the user interface language and not according to "content language", way back in 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point crying over spilled milk.)
The underlying rationale was that each Wiktionary was intended to address the needs of speakers of that language. One could argue that user interface language and content language are the same thing. The content for this purpose is not so much the words that are defined, but the way they are defined and otherwise written up. Part of the vision is to have tools for identifying material when you don't even know what language it's in.
Ec
On 04/03/2008, Mike mike_wikipedia@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
Lately, I have started wondering why we don't have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one to deal with English, say, which could be used for people interested in working on English words in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning Romance languages' participles underway in en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
I see the same discussions concerning various details on certain Swedish words being held on both sv: and en: - and in how many more places are these words discussed without me noticing because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and perhaps unable to understand the language in which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else) familiar with other wiktionaries could point out how the same problem may have been solved already in this second wiktionary, would I only know about the discussion...
Someone found out a while ago that several wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same issue over and over and over again, once in each wiktionary where this user found this particular error.
Though I know meta - in theory at least - has been multilingual for quite some time, I'm not very active there and hence don't really know about how successful (or not) their attempts to deal with large numbers of extensive multilingual discussions have been. (Perhaps someone could enlighten me?)
Of course I understand that there are some serious complications with any attempt of a "multilingual discussion" - maybe most importantly the continuous need to translate things, but I guess there also will be issues with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange things in very different manners.
Now the question is: would anyone be interested in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of their favourite language if it took place in meta or on another site than they ordinarily work on? Or would such an attempt be considered as an attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how "my" wiktonary is run?
Comments?
Regards, \Mike
(p.s. This actually makes me regret that we basically decided to split the wiktionaries according to the user interface language and not according to "content language", way back in 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point crying over spilled milk.)
I'm \Mike.
You'll find me at [[wikt:sv:Användare:Mike]], [[wikt:en:User:Mike]] and elsewhere.
Since each Wiktionary project aims to define every word in every language, a single multilingual project would be more optimal than the current division per-interface language.
Interestingly, such a project has already started (albeit, not under the auspices of Wikimedia Foundation): http://www.omegawiki.org/
This project was started by Wikimedians and is almost identical to the aims of Wiktionary. The main difference is that omegawiki is based on a more dictionary-friendly version of MediaWiki, allowing definitions in different languages to be attached to an expression. The user selects their preferred language and definitions in this language are presented first.
One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki, we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly. That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users, for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more likely.
Are there long-term plans to bring omegawiki under Wikimedia Foundation? Do Wiktionarians oppose this? Do omegawiki-people oppose this? Does the Foundation oppose this?
Oldak Quill wrote:
One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki, we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly. That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users, for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more likely.
A lot of this depends on your philosophy of dictionaries. Are they descriptive or prescriptive? Translating dictionaries tend very heavily toward the prescriptive, directed toward efficiently solving the very real problem of rendering a text in one language into a readable text in another language. But translations taken from translating dictionaries will at best seem stillted, and often misleading unless you have fully explored the subtleties of both languages. That is not particularly efficient.
A top level single-language dictionary is built on descriptive historical principles in that it is evidence based. And, as much as in Wikipedia should be citing sources for usage. To the extent that a dictionary describes words in its own language it should always strive for a depth that is unachievable in a translation dictionary. A wise literary translator must be aware of the subtleties, preferably of both languages, but especially of the target language.
The problem for Wiktionary is how best to merge these conflicting tendencies.
Ec
Hoi, When you intend to make a Wiktionary and have it include all words of all languages and, have wiktionaries in all the languages that ask for one, you have a situation where every project aims to do exactly the same thing and without collaboration between the projects you have extreme inefficiency. It is also not feasible to have all these projects be of the same standard and only a few projects are usable.
Dividing dictionaries in either mono-lingual or translation dictionaries is historically correct. However with the Internet and with the massive collaboration and the mashing of resources that is now possible, it is a bit of a simplification. Also the sad reality of Wiktionary is that it is inherently useful for looking things up by people. Thanks to the massive effort to standardise data it becomes possible to extract data from Wiktionary. This is what enhances the potential of Wiktionary enormously.
OmegaWiki is inherently able to reuse data because of the way the data is stored. OmegaWiki is able to provide the same information in many languages.
Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki, we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly. That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users, for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more likely.
A lot of this depends on your philosophy of dictionaries. Are they descriptive or prescriptive? Translating dictionaries tend very heavily toward the prescriptive, directed toward efficiently solving the very real problem of rendering a text in one language into a readable text in another language. But translations taken from translating dictionaries will at best seem stillted, and often misleading unless you have fully explored the subtleties of both languages. That is not particularly efficient.
A top level single-language dictionary is built on descriptive historical principles in that it is evidence based. And, as much as in Wikipedia should be citing sources for usage. To the extent that a dictionary describes words in its own language it should always strive for a depth that is unachievable in a translation dictionary. A wise literary translator must be aware of the subtleties, preferably of both languages, but especially of the target language.
The problem for Wiktionary is how best to merge these conflicting tendencies.
Ec
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Hoi, It was for the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt what was then called "Ultimate Wiktionary". The WMF decided at the time that it did not want to adopt our project and as a consequence Stichting Open Progress was founded and the name of the project was changed to "OmegaWiki" in order not to confuse with the Wiktionary projects.
The content of OmegaWiki is available under a different licensing scheme from the Wiktionary data. This has everything to do with the fact that you cannot license facts in the first place and because in our opinion there are many competing effectively incompatible Open/Free licenses that deal with lexical data. By providing our data both as GFDLD or CC-by, it is at least possible for everyone to collaborate with *us *and *our *data.
As to bringing OmegaWiki under the WMF, there was a time when this was the obvious solution. At this stage it is not so obvious nor necessary any more, What is needed is a wish to collaborate. Collaboration is something that is obvious for us. Contrary to some other projects we cherish a good relation with the Wikimedia Foundation.. There is plenty of room for people of good will to accomplish shared objectives. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Mike mike_wikipedia@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
Lately, I have started wondering why we don't have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one to deal with English, say, which could be used for people interested in working on English words in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning Romance languages' participles underway in en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
I see the same discussions concerning various details on certain Swedish words being held on both sv: and en: - and in how many more places are these words discussed without me noticing because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and perhaps unable to understand the language in which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else) familiar with other wiktionaries could point out how the same problem may have been solved already in this second wiktionary, would I only know about the discussion...
Someone found out a while ago that several wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same issue over and over and over again, once in each wiktionary where this user found this particular error.
Though I know meta - in theory at least - has been multilingual for quite some time, I'm not very active there and hence don't really know about how successful (or not) their attempts to deal with large numbers of extensive multilingual discussions have been. (Perhaps someone could enlighten me?)
Of course I understand that there are some serious complications with any attempt of a "multilingual discussion" - maybe most importantly the continuous need to translate things, but I guess there also will be issues with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange things in very different manners.
Now the question is: would anyone be interested in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of their favourite language if it took place in meta or on another site than they ordinarily work on? Or would such an attempt be considered as an attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how "my" wiktonary is run?
Comments?
Regards, \Mike
(p.s. This actually makes me regret that we basically decided to split the wiktionaries according to the user interface language and not according to "content language", way back in 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point crying over spilled milk.)
I'm \Mike.
You'll find me at [[wikt:sv:Användare:Mike]], [[wikt:en:User:Mike]] and
elsewhere.
Since each Wiktionary project aims to define every word in every language, a single multilingual project would be more optimal than the current division per-interface language.
Interestingly, such a project has already started (albeit, not under the auspices of Wikimedia Foundation): http://www.omegawiki.org/
This project was started by Wikimedians and is almost identical to the aims of Wiktionary. The main difference is that omegawiki is based on a more dictionary-friendly version of MediaWiki, allowing definitions in different languages to be attached to an expression. The user selects their preferred language and definitions in this language are presented first.
One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki, we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly. That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users, for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more likely.
Are there long-term plans to bring omegawiki under Wikimedia Foundation? Do Wiktionarians oppose this? Do omegawiki-people oppose this? Does the Foundation oppose this?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
\Mike wrote:
Lately, I have started wondering why we don't have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one to deal with English, say, which could be used for people interested in working on English words in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
This sounds like a bad idea. If you mean that we should start to write in Swedish on the talk pages of the English and French Wiktionary, what good would that be? Who would understand those discussions? But Wiktionary is already ruined, so why don't you go ahead.
Earlier this year, I called a meeting in Stockholm about free dictionaries for the Swedish language. Ten people showed up, representing as many projects. But nobody from the Swedish Wiktionary bothered to attend. All who attended considered Wiktionary to be broken by design and not worth spending time on. And hey, I'm representing the Swedish chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. I have fifteen years of experience of free dictionaries and I was among the younger at this meeting.
So the first issue should be: Why are there no discussions? I.e. skip the word multilingual. Why do the important and competent people, who do contribute to free dictionaries, shun Wiktionary? Shouldn't we just scrap Wiktionary and start from zero? If it is good and worth keeping, where is the good in it?
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org