[Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

[Ray Saintonge]

Magosányi Árpád wrote:

>A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Ray Saintonge a következőeket írta:
>  
>
>>Magosányi Árpád wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I cannot see what should be the difference between words in wikipedia and
>>>wiktionary beyond that wiktionary should have links to other words in
>>>other languages, which can easily put into wikipedia in a
>>>non-obstructive manner.
>>>
>>he difference is between what the words mean and the stories 
>>surrounding them.  For a dictionary writer it is enough guide a person 
>>to describe and document how that word might be used in writing.
>>    
>>
>False assumption. You won't be able to use a word properly until you
>learn exactly what it means. And there are no two words which have
>the exact same meaning in any language. What you traditionally put
>into a dictionary and into a lexicon is just specific aspects of
>the same word, same idea. (The problem is actually worse because one word
>labels more ideas, sometimes very distinct ones.)
>
They may be specific aspects, but together they approach an 
understanding of a word, which is as much as we can hope for.

>Separating these different views so far away makes exploring it more
>difficult. I think that ideas should be described in the whole wikimedia
>in a way which makes easy to wander through them in the same way as we
>process ideas in our brain. We don't know much about the latter, but
>it would be fruitful if we would use the information we do have.
>
I would not go too far to presume how we process things in our brains.  
It may not be as orderly as some would believe.

>I see only one potential problem by presenting all the relevant aspects
>as one entry: volume of information. But this could be handled easily
>by presenting it in a well thought-out manner.
>
>But I can make a long list of problems arising because disconnectedness.
>
The connectedness won't happen by forcing things together prematurely. 

>>>Think about yourself. If you are asked to instruct, you will instruct.
>>>If you are asked for information, you will give it. If you are using a
>>>word, you will be aware a lot of concepts attached to that word:
>>>other ideas, events, pieces of art, quotations, forms of it in another
>>>languages, etc.
>>>
>>Precisely so.  Words have denotations (specific dictionary meanings) and 
>>connotations (supplementary impressions that are as much derived from 
>>their context).  Words like "miserly" and "frugal" have very similar 
>>denotations but their connotations are worlds apart.  When we look at 
>>specific contexts, the word as a tool of the writer can easily be 
>>overwhelmed.
>>    
>>
>>If I wanted to write in Hungarian I would at 
>>least need to refer back to the Hungarian Wiktionary to learn the 
>>difference; this would also be the case of I were translating material 
>>from Hungarian.  Translating by just using a dictionary can give some 
>>strange results.
>>    
>>
>
>I think this supports my POV.
>
Perhaps,  but if you give some people more of the other language than 
they need they will go away in confusion.

>>On Arthur Conan Doyle, I was disappointed that the person who began that 
>>project on Wiktionary went away before he could take it further.
>>    
>>
>
>I was just referring to his book "The Hound of the Baskervilles",
>because its title contains a dog. Did not know about such project
>on Wiktionary (I am a newbie here), but you made me curious.
>
Some time ago a user put in an alphabetical list of all the words used 
by Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes writings.  It was an interesting idea, 
but still needed a lot more work to make it really usefull.

>>>Our favourite wiki have never taken an art or literature class.
>>>If it did, it would have a lot of asociations on each Wikisource items.
>>>Also, when I have taken high school, our math, physics and chemistry
>>>classes have been built upon each other. If they had been Wiki pages,
>>>there would have been a lot of references.
>>>
>>his is all very fine, but what it comes down to is much work.  As 
>>valuable as these references may be it still takes someone to do the 
>>work of creating all those links.  If each one is to be checked properly 
>>the work will be very slow.
>>    
>>
>
>Such a work would be of great value.
>
>And now think about references between different wikies, like
>wiktionary, wikispecies and wikipedia. As the current structure
>encourages disconnectednes, such work now is not just slow;
>it is _impossible_: the number of disconnectednesses grow larger
>than the reconnections.
>
Of course! More connections would have great value.  Your observation is 
also correct, but this is a wiki where anyone can add in the links.  
Maintining a balance between joint and separate projects is never easy.

Ec