[Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata-l] Glossary vs. Glossaries

[Mathieu Stumpf]

Le 2013-03-22 14:27, Guillaume Paumier a écrit :
> Hi,
> Below are the current solutions I'm seeing to move forward; I'd love
> to get some feedback as to what people think would be the best way to
> proceed.

Note that your solutions are not exclusives, we may as well chose to 
distribute ressources in each, so we have a working but not great 
solution right now, an easily implementable better solution on mean 
term, and a great solution on the long term.

Anyway glossary are a dictionnary topic, so this topic may really feed 
the wiktionary future brainstorm page[1].

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary_future
>
> * 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.
>
> * 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:
> 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-March/067450.html
> . 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> guillaume
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Guillaume Paumier
> <gpaumier at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The use of jargon, acronyms and other abbreviations throughout the
>> Wikimedia movement is a major source of communication issues, and
>> barriers to comprehension and involvement.
>>
>> The recent thread on this list about "What is Product?" is an 
>> example
>> of this, as are initialisms that have long been known to be a 
>> barrier
>> for Wikipedia newcomers.
>>
>> A way to bridge people and communities with different vocabularies 
>> is
>> to write and maintain a glossary that explains jargon in plain 
>> English
>> terms. We've been lacking a good and up-to-date glossary for 
>> Wikimedia
>> "stuff" (Foundation, chapter, movement, technology, etc.).
>>
>> Therefore, I've started to clean up and expand the outdated Glossary
>> on meta, but it's a lot of work, and I don't have all the answers
>> myself either. I'll continue to work on it, but I'd love to get some
>> help on this and to make it a collaborative effort.
>>
>> If you have a few minutes to spare, please consider helping your
>> (current and future) fellow Wikimedians by writing a few definitions
>> if there are terms that you can explain in plain English. Additions 
>> of
>> new terms are much welcome as well:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Glossary
>>
>> Some caveats:
>> * As part of my work, I'm mostly interested in a glossary from a
>> technical perspective, so the list currently has a technical bias. 
>> I'm
>> hoping that by sending this message to a wider audience, people from
>> the whole movement will contribute to the glossary and balance it 
>> out.
>> * Also, I've started to clean up the glossary, but it still contains
>> dated terms and definitions from a few years ago (like the FundCom),
>> so boldly edit/remove obsolete content.