[Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Glossary vs. Glossaries
Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemowiki at gmail.com
Sun Mar 24 20:47:26 UTC 2013
Seb35, 24/03/2013 21:19:
> I created some time ago a template on meta for a glossary and applied it
> to very basic terms , mainly with translation in mind. Another idea is
> to use the translate extension on [[meta:Glossary]] to uniformize the
> presentation accross languages and to use the translation memory (although
> it don’t apply to parts of messages AFAIK).
That would be more like the idea of a
> Possibly it can also filled
> Extension:WikimediaMessages with some other very basic Wikimedia terms
> in translations, but it would probably demands a lot of maintenance for
> all languages with declensions.
> Related to the Wiktionary, some of the terms have a place on the
> Wiktionary (analytics, API, backlog, boldness, etc.) but certainly not
> all. Given this fact and your suggestion of using Wikidata, I had the idea
> of an application based on Wikidata/Omegawiki to create custom
> dictionaries, which could hold many specialized lexicons (e.g. wikispeak,
> internet slang, etc.). I am going to the [[Wiktionary future]] page :)
> ~ Seb35
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Guillaume Paumier
>> <gpaumier at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> 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 Therefore, I've started to clean up and expand the outdated Glossary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:
>>> 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.
> 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