[Foundation-l] 1.6 Billion USD to spare? How about liberation of some pictures

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
OmegaWiki is not a constructed language. Representing is as such
demonstrates clearly that you do not understand its concepts. What you
propose with tagging it with namespaces makes it even more clear that some
more understanding of the subject matter would be advisable. In the
ISO-639-3 there are only some 7000 languages, the ISO-639-6 will include
over 25.000 linguistic entities.

If worse is better, then your proposal is perfect because how much worse can
it get then proposing a solution that is open ended and has the potential of
over 25.000 new namespaces ? When you consider the problem with localising
MediaWiki; there are a limited amount of messages with a limited amount of
languages and already changes to the software have been made to allow for
the growing number of localisations.

Your later assumptions are based on the "best" solution you can come up
with. So please do some real thinking in stead of blowing
smoke<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blow_smoke>
.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 23, 2008 3:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 7:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_OmegaWiki_for_Commons is the way in
> > which Commons can have tagging with multi lingual functionality. This is
> > what I think Commons needs. I think this is the time to start doing
> this.
>
> This requires accepting the whole OmegaWiki conlang (the associated
> meanings stuff) and there actually being a fairly complete OmegaWiki
> dictionary.
>
> There is a much simpler "worse is better" solution which simply
> involves having separate tag namespaces for different languages (and
> possibly even different fields of interest) and then marking
> category/tag pages with redirects and related tag links.
>
> We've talked about it at commons before, but their remains a
> resistance to tagging schemes and and allegiance to placing all images
> in a hierarchy of categories.
>
> I think the first step needed is simply accepting the use of "all that
> applies" tagging, either as a replacement for or addition to the
> current category system.  Beyond that the details of how the tagging
> works can be resolved over time.  We should not fool ourselves into
> thinking that we can possibly get it all right on the first try.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>