[Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

Mon Mar 11 15:29:20 UTC 2013

Thank you for the clarification, Gerard. I was indeed misunderstanding the
proposal.

We need to find a central place to discuss a proposal.

2013/3/11 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>

> Hoi,
> 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
> that.
>
> 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
> indicate this.
>
> 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.
> Thanks,
>          GerardM
>
>
> On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic at wikimedia.de
> >wrote:
>
> > Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
> >
> > <
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
> > >
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > Commons:
> > * 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
> >
> > Wiktionary:
> > * 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.
> >
> > <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>
> > >
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > again,
> > >> structured data is often rather easy to transform):
> > >> <
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki<
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> 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<
> >
> 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<
> > 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
> > Wikipedia
> > >> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
> > Wikisource
> > >> -- 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
> > stricter
> > > 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
> > to
> > >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

-- 
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.