« Return to Thread: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
Re: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
by Gerard Meijssen-3
::
Rate this Message:
Hoi,
It was for the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt what was then called "Ultimate
Wiktionary". The WMF decided at the time that it did not want to adopt our
project and as a consequence Stichting Open Progress was founded and the
name of the project was changed to "OmegaWiki" in order not to confuse with
the Wiktionary projects.
The content of OmegaWiki is available under a different licensing scheme
from the Wiktionary data. This has everything to do with the fact that you
cannot license facts in the first place and because in our opinion there are
many competing effectively incompatible Open/Free licenses that deal with
lexical data. By providing our data both as GFDLD or CC-by, it is at least
possible for everyone to collaborate with *us *and *our *data.
As to bringing OmegaWiki under the WMF, there was a time when this was the
obvious solution. At this stage it is not so obvious nor necessary any more,
What is needed is a wish to collaborate. Collaboration is something that is
obvious for us. Contrary to some other projects we cherish a good relation
with the Wikimedia Foundation.. There is plenty of room for people of good
will to accomplish shared objectives.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@...> wrote:
> On 04/03/2008, Mike <mike_wikipedia@...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lately, I have started wondering why we don't
> > have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one
> > to deal with English, say, which could be used
> > for people interested in working on English words
> > in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so
> > on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount
> > of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
> >
> >
> > I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning
> > Romance languages' participles underway in
> > en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such
> > discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or
> > the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
> >
> > I see the same discussions concerning various
> > details on certain Swedish words being held on
> > both sv: and en: - and in how many more places
> > are these words discussed without me noticing
> > because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and
> > perhaps unable to understand the language in
> > which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else)
> > familiar with other wiktionaries could point out
> > how the same problem may have been solved already
> > in this second wiktionary, would I only know
> > about the discussion...
> >
> > Someone found out a while ago that several
> > wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment
> > of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same
> > issue over and over and over again, once in each
> > wiktionary where this user found this particular
> > error.
> >
> >
> >
> > Though I know meta - in theory at least - has
> > been multilingual for quite some time, I'm not
> > very active there and hence don't really know
> > about how successful (or not) their attempts to
> > deal with large numbers of extensive multilingual
> > discussions have been. (Perhaps someone could
> > enlighten me?)
> >
> > Of course I understand that there are some
> > serious complications with any attempt of a
> > "multilingual discussion" - maybe most
> > importantly the continuous need to translate
> > things, but I guess there also will be issues
> > with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange
> > things in very different manners.
> >
> > Now the question is: would anyone be interested
> > in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of
> > their favourite language if it took place in meta
> > or on another site than they ordinarily work on?
> > Or would such an attempt be considered as an
> > attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how
> > "my" wiktonary is run?
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > \Mike
> >
> > (p.s. This actually makes me regret that we
> > basically decided to split the wiktionaries
> > according to the user interface language and not
> > according to "content language", way back in
> > 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English
> > wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point
> > crying over spilled milk.)
> >
> > I'm \Mike.
> >
> > You'll find me at [[wikt:sv:Användare:Mike]], [[wikt:en:User:Mike]] and
> elsewhere.
>
> Since each Wiktionary project aims to define every word in every
> language, a single multilingual project would be more optimal than the
> current division per-interface language.
>
> Interestingly, such a project has already started (albeit, not under
> the auspices of Wikimedia Foundation): http://www.omegawiki.org/
>
> This project was started by Wikimedians and is almost identical to the
> aims of Wiktionary. The main difference is that omegawiki is based on
> a more dictionary-friendly version of MediaWiki, allowing definitions
> in different languages to be attached to an expression. The user
> selects their preferred language and definitions in this language are
> presented first.
>
> One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible
> to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki,
> we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think
> omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many
> Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
>
> A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly.
> That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and
> useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users,
> for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages
> aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more
> likely.
>
> Are there long-term plans to bring omegawiki under Wikimedia
> Foundation? Do Wiktionarians oppose this? Do omegawiki-people oppose
> this? Does the Foundation oppose this?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
It was for the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt what was then called "Ultimate
Wiktionary". The WMF decided at the time that it did not want to adopt our
project and as a consequence Stichting Open Progress was founded and the
name of the project was changed to "OmegaWiki" in order not to confuse with
the Wiktionary projects.
The content of OmegaWiki is available under a different licensing scheme
from the Wiktionary data. This has everything to do with the fact that you
cannot license facts in the first place and because in our opinion there are
many competing effectively incompatible Open/Free licenses that deal with
lexical data. By providing our data both as GFDLD or CC-by, it is at least
possible for everyone to collaborate with *us *and *our *data.
As to bringing OmegaWiki under the WMF, there was a time when this was the
obvious solution. At this stage it is not so obvious nor necessary any more,
What is needed is a wish to collaborate. Collaboration is something that is
obvious for us. Contrary to some other projects we cherish a good relation
with the Wikimedia Foundation.. There is plenty of room for people of good
will to accomplish shared objectives.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@...> wrote:
> On 04/03/2008, Mike <mike_wikipedia@...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lately, I have started wondering why we don't
> > have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one
> > to deal with English, say, which could be used
> > for people interested in working on English words
> > in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so
> > on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount
> > of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)
> >
> >
> > I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning
> > Romance languages' participles underway in
> > en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such
> > discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or
> > the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
> >
> > I see the same discussions concerning various
> > details on certain Swedish words being held on
> > both sv: and en: - and in how many more places
> > are these words discussed without me noticing
> > because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and
> > perhaps unable to understand the language in
> > which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else)
> > familiar with other wiktionaries could point out
> > how the same problem may have been solved already
> > in this second wiktionary, would I only know
> > about the discussion...
> >
> > Someone found out a while ago that several
> > wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment
> > of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same
> > issue over and over and over again, once in each
> > wiktionary where this user found this particular
> > error.
> >
> >
> >
> > Though I know meta - in theory at least - has
> > been multilingual for quite some time, I'm not
> > very active there and hence don't really know
> > about how successful (or not) their attempts to
> > deal with large numbers of extensive multilingual
> > discussions have been. (Perhaps someone could
> > enlighten me?)
> >
> > Of course I understand that there are some
> > serious complications with any attempt of a
> > "multilingual discussion" - maybe most
> > importantly the continuous need to translate
> > things, but I guess there also will be issues
> > with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange
> > things in very different manners.
> >
> > Now the question is: would anyone be interested
> > in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of
> > their favourite language if it took place in meta
> > or on another site than they ordinarily work on?
> > Or would such an attempt be considered as an
> > attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how
> > "my" wiktonary is run?
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > \Mike
> >
> > (p.s. This actually makes me regret that we
> > basically decided to split the wiktionaries
> > according to the user interface language and not
> > according to "content language", way back in
> > 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English
> > wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point
> > crying over spilled milk.)
> >
> > I'm \Mike.
> >
> > You'll find me at [[wikt:sv:Användare:Mike]], [[wikt:en:User:Mike]] and
> elsewhere.
>
> Since each Wiktionary project aims to define every word in every
> language, a single multilingual project would be more optimal than the
> current division per-interface language.
>
> Interestingly, such a project has already started (albeit, not under
> the auspices of Wikimedia Foundation): http://www.omegawiki.org/
>
> This project was started by Wikimedians and is almost identical to the
> aims of Wiktionary. The main difference is that omegawiki is based on
> a more dictionary-friendly version of MediaWiki, allowing definitions
> in different languages to be attached to an expression. The user
> selects their preferred language and definitions in this language are
> presented first.
>
> One issue is the project works in a different way, it is not possible
> to simply transfer Wiktionary contents into it. To embrace omegawiki,
> we'd have to phase out Wiktionary in its current state. I think
> omegawiki as Wiktionary 2.0 is a controversial idea among many
> Wiktionarians, though I can't give you any more details on that.
>
> A unified multilingual project could make progress far more quickly.
> That omegawiki is based on WikiData also makes it more flexible and
> useful (as part of the semantic web, for researchers, for end-users,
> for contributors, &c.) Also, because users from different languages
> aggregate together, correctness of spelling and definition is more
> likely.
>
> Are there long-term plans to bring omegawiki under Wikimedia
> Foundation? Do Wiktionarians oppose this? Do omegawiki-people oppose
> this? Does the Foundation oppose this?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill@...)
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
« Return to Thread: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
