Erik Moeller wrote:.

..... Aside from that, I am still skeptical that Wiktionary is at all feasible with the current software ....

This is as they say in Holland "een schot voor open doel"; on opportunity to good to miss.

You may know that I am advocating the spend of money and energy to produce "the ultimate wiktionary" (see the article on Meta) in essence this is a relational database embedded in mediawiki that serves us with wiktionary content. One database to serve us all ....

At this moment we are starting to use some bots in earnest. One bot doing the interwiki.py (see the article on Meta) is running now for its fourth day on the en:wiktionary and reached the word "Effort". It is doing something that will be a funcionality of the proposed database. Another bot is running on scn:wiktionary adding a word a minute, it has something like 60.000 words and giving the ambitions of all wiktionaries it should run on all wiktionaries. When it was adding content into the "ultimate wiktionary" it would need to run only once. I have a file with 19.930 words that I can use to create articles for many wiktionaries. It is a multiple of articles that are needed to seed all the different wiktionaries and, it can be done but it just takes a LOONGGG time and it is not really good because as content is added, the work done by the interwiki.py should be done again as it may lead to different results.

Another big blob of content waiting to happen is the GEMET thesaurus (see article on Me*ta) and the European multilingual thesaurus on health promotion (see article on Meta). http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/European_multilingual_thesaurus_on_health_promotion*

So, Eric is right where he says that working on our current wiktionary using the current software is a debatable practice. It is as good as it gets though. Luckily we do have this idea of something better. This is what makes us go on, (this is the moment where you hear the song "somewhere over the rainbow" with conotations of a pot of gold).. :)

Thanks, GerardM