[Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Mon Mar 11 15:14:33 UTC 2013
There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by
OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for
What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in
OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and
obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..
For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective
.... we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or
neutral .... we do not have a stupid. We have singular and plural and we
do not have dual like in Arabic.
When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as
such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to
Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not
even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things
that fulfil a need, that have a purpose.
On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic at wikimedia.de>wrote:
> Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
> but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity,
> something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the
> proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
> I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy
> to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and
> Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
> * easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
> use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
> * more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link
> them to each other and to Wikidata
> * easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
> direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
> We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good
> start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
> I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many,
> extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be
> a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to
> ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is
> a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in
> the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it
> switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not*
> use the software as is, and start from scratch.
> We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even
> should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the
> current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right
> place is.
> So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
> 2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com>
> > Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
> > There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
> >> Wiktionary.
> >> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
> >> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then
> >> structured data is often rather easy to transform):
> >> <
> >> >
> >> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
> >> which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
> >> <
> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_**
> >> Wikisource_strategic_vision<
> > That's Wikisource. :)
> >> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
> >> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<
> >> >
> >> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this
> >> direction.
> >> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following
> >> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
> >> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
> >> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
> >> Commons much less than Wiktionary).
> > Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia;
> > Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same
> > way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a
> > definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way;
> > Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
> > As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit
> > a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies
> > idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
> > I would appreciate a discussion with
> >> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
> >> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just
> >> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
> >> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
> >> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
> >> careful planning over hastened decisions.
> > It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
> > Nemo
> Project director Wikidata
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l