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

Samuel Klein meta.sj at gmail.com
Sun Mar 24 22:00:36 UTC 2013

On Mar 22, 2013 10:34 AM, "Mathieu Stumpf" writes:
> 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

My thoughts exactly.  This is fundamentally a dictionary question, and a
service / view that a good faceted dictionary can provide.

>> * 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list