[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

[Gerard Meijssen]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
>
>>> Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge 
>>> all
>>> wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate
>>> Wikibooks, etc.  But that's simply for consistency's sake.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>>
>> Logical, but ever so practical? A dictionary is per se about 
>> differences between two different languages (OK, except for 
>> describing unilingual dictionaries, but we're talking about 
>> translation dictionaries now, aren't we?). An encyclopedia is not. A 
>> Wikitionary consulter usually looks for a translation, and in 
>> Wiktionary several languages are merged already. Wikipedia always 
>> keeps one language.
>
>
> The difference between two languages is only a secondary purpose for 
> each Wiktionary.  The Wiktionary for a particular language primarily 
> describes the different ways in which the word in question is used 
> within the language.  You may very well usually look to Wiktionary for 
> translations, but others can look for different things.
>
> Ec

Hoi,
What someone looks for in a Wiktionary is up to that someone. For 
someone interested in translations, etymology is of little intrest. For 
someone interested in spelling, a definition is of little interest. The 
reduction of the components of a Wiktionary is absurd. It is equally 
absurd to state that one function is more important than the next.

Relevant is the realisation that the current Wiktionaries are as closed 
as any proprietary content. This means that the only medium in which 
Wiktionary is relevant is within an Internet-browser. To improve this 
will make us closer to realising the objectives of the Wikimedia 
Foundation. This is why we should publish in XML specific to dictionary 
content or why we should publish in .dict format or RFC 2229. This will 
not happen with content in the current format and as such it is a dead end.

Thanks,
    GerardM