[Wikimedia-l] Glossary vs. Glossaries
Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemowiki at gmail.com
Fri Mar 22 13:51:05 UTC 2013
Guillaume Paumier, 22/03/2013 14:27:
> * Status quo: We keep the current glossaries as they are, even if they
> overlap and duplicate work. We'll manage.
> * Wikidata: If Wikidata could be used to host terms and definitions
> (in various languages), and wikis could pull this data using
> templates/Lua, it would be a sane way to reduce duplication, while
> still allowing local wikis to complement it with their own terms. For
> example, "administrator" is a generic term across Wikimedia sites
> (even MediaWiki sites), so it would go into the general glossary
> repository on Wikidata; but "DYK" could be local to the English
> Wikipedia. With proper templates, the integration between remote and
> local terms could be seamless. It seems to me, however, that this
> would require significant development work.
Will take years.
> * Google custom search: Waldir recently used Google Custom Search to
> created a search tool to find technical information across many pages
> and sites where information is currently fragmented:
> . We could set up a similar tool (or a floss alternative) that would
> include all glossaries. By advertising the tool prominently on
> existing glossary pages (so that users know it exists), this could
> allow us to curate more specific glossaries, while keeping them all
> searchable with one tool.
> Right now, I'm inclined to go with the "custom search" solution,
> because it looks like the easiest and fastest to implement, while
> reducing maintenance costs and remaining flexible. That said, I'd love
> to hear feedback and opinions about this before implementing anything.
Any solution that helps killing overlap and duplication is welcome.
Having four slightly different versions of the same glossary
(mediawiki.org, wikibooks, wikipedia, meta) plus countless accessories
means that none does the job.
More information about the Wikimedia-l