Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Milos Rancic-2
(Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])

During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give
OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against
it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me
"Take it!" :)

My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all
Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was
talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He
has complained that philologists like more open form for writing
dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of
Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the
multilingual Wikisource.

And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some
software improvements of Wikidata extension.

[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki

* * *

As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language
committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community
should discuss about it.

[http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual
dictionary based on MediaWiki extension
[[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]].

No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of
the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At
the other side, the project would get much more attention as a
Wikimedia project.

Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and
linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project.

[[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project,
doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project.

== Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki ==

=== Advantages ===
* It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All
synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably
more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need
just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion
entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is
possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly
possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of
entries.
* It is structured formally.
* ...

=== Disadvantages ===
* Philologists like more open form for dictionaries.
* OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should
make it closer.
* ...

== How to adopt OmegaWiki ==
* Instead of all Wiktionaries.
* As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for
multilingual Wikisource.
* As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities)
* ...?

== Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki ==

=== If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries ===
* Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features.
* Fixing bugs in software if needed.
* Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs.
* Importing all data from Wiktionaries.

=== If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries ===
* Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic features.
* Fixing bugs in software if needed.

== Licensing ==

OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as
CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well).

* Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal
problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions,
which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least
restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license.
* ...

[[Category:Requests for comments]]

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
OmegaWiki is truly multi lingual in that depending on the amount of content
available in a language labels and annotations will show up in the preferred
language. Recently many of the relevant phrases were localised in Telugu and
consequently it became useful in Telugu.

When a language is right to left the user interface and the data is shown in
the right to left direction.

One or the more interesting things of OmegaWiki is that we do have links to
Commons and Wikipedia. This means that when you look for pictures of a
"hobune" you will actually find them. Having links to Wikipedia means that
they can effectively work as interwiki links.

To understand why we at OmegaWiki want the WMF to adopt this project, we
have always wanted OmegaWiki to be a WMF project. As far as the suggestion
goes to end the Wiktionary projects, we have always said that this is for
the Wiktionary projects themselves to decide. However particularly for the
smaller projects the effort of adding content to OmegaWiki is more efficient
as more people benefit from work that only needs to be done once.

As OmegaWiki has its data in a database, it is possible to use the data in
applications. This is very much our goal ... we are on record saying
"success is when people find an application for our data we did not think
off."

As to the license, PD would be our preferred license but sadly their are too
many people who consider that their must be a license because ... In our
view making our data available under a license prevents success. This is a
reason why we are not interested in "copyright violations".
Thanks,
      GerardM




On 19 July 2010 09:05, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
> wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])
>
> During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give
> OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against
> it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me
> "Take it!" :)
>
> My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all
> Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was
> talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He
> has complained that philologists like more open form for writing
> dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of
> Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the
> multilingual Wikisource.
>
> And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some
> software improvements of Wikidata extension.
>
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
>
> * * *
>
> As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language
> committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community
> should discuss about it.
>
> [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual
> dictionary based on MediaWiki extension
> [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]].
>
> No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of
> the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At
> the other side, the project would get much more attention as a
> Wikimedia project.
>
> Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and
> linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project.
>
> [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project,
> doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project.
>
> == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki ==
>
> === Advantages ===
> * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All
> synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably
> more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need
> just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion
> entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is
> possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly
> possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of
> entries.
> * It is structured formally.
> * ...
>
> === Disadvantages ===
> * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries.
> * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should
> make it closer.
> * ...
>
> == How to adopt OmegaWiki ==
> * Instead of all Wiktionaries.
> * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for
> multilingual Wikisource.
> * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities)
> * ...?
>
> == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki ==
>
> === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries ===
> * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> features.
> * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs.
> * Importing all data from Wiktionaries.
>
> === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries ===
> * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> features.
> * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
>
> == Licensing ==
>
> OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as
> CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well).
>
> * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal
> problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions,
> which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least
> restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license.
> * ...
>
> [[Category:Requests for comments]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Elisabeth Anderl-2
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Hi,
Omegawiki might be great, ok, I don't put that into question.
But there are reasons why /some/ people did continue working in Wiktionary.
It does not contain flexion tables, genders etc. and I personally find it
confusing.
If You close them You will lose people starting with me.

E.

2010/7/19 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>

> (Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
> wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])
>
> During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give
> OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against
> it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me
> "Take it!" :)
>
> My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all
> Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was
> talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He
> has complained that philologists like more open form for writing
> dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of
> Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the
> multilingual Wikisource.
>
> And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some
> software improvements of Wikidata extension.
>
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
>
> * * *
>
> As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language
> committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community
> should discuss about it.
>
> [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual
> dictionary based on MediaWiki extension
> [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]].
>
> No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of
> the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At
> the other side, the project would get much more attention as a
> Wikimedia project.
>
> Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and
> linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project.
>
> [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project,
> doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project.
>
> == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki ==
>
> === Advantages ===
> * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All
> synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably
> more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need
> just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion
> entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is
> possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly
> possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of
> entries.
> * It is structured formally.
> * ...
>
> === Disadvantages ===
> * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries.
> * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should
> make it closer.
> * ...
>
> == How to adopt OmegaWiki ==
> * Instead of all Wiktionaries.
> * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for
> multilingual Wikisource.
> * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities)
> * ...?
>
> == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki ==
>
> === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries ===
> * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> features.
> * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs.
> * Importing all data from Wiktionaries.
>
> === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries ===
> * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> features.
> * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
>
> == Licensing ==
>
> OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as
> CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well).
>
> * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal
> problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions,
> which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least
> restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license.
> * ...
>
> [[Category:Requests for comments]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I have always said and will do so again that I am not in favour of closing
Wiktionaries. This is for the Wiktionary comunities themselves to decide. It
is true that we do not support inflections, we do support genders and many
other things.

Spacebirdy, I do not want to lose you :) you are part of our community and a
well respected member at that.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 19 July 2010 14:38, e <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> Omegawiki might be great, ok, I don't put that into question.
> But there are reasons why /some/ people did continue working in Wiktionary.
> It does not contain flexion tables, genders etc. and I personally find it
> confusing.
> If You close them You will lose people starting with me.
>
> E.
>
> 2010/7/19 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>
>
> > (Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
> > wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])
> >
> > During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give
> > OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against
> > it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me
> > "Take it!" :)
> >
> > My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all
> > Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was
> > talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He
> > has complained that philologists like more open form for writing
> > dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of
> > Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the
> > multilingual Wikisource.
> >
> > And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some
> > software improvements of Wikidata extension.
> >
> > [1] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language
> > committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community
> > should discuss about it.
> >
> > [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual
> > dictionary based on MediaWiki extension
> > [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]].
> >
> > No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of
> > the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At
> > the other side, the project would get much more attention as a
> > Wikimedia project.
> >
> > Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and
> > linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project.
> >
> > [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project,
> > doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project.
> >
> > == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki ==
> >
> > === Advantages ===
> > * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All
> > synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably
> > more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need
> > just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion
> > entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is
> > possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly
> > possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of
> > entries.
> > * It is structured formally.
> > * ...
> >
> > === Disadvantages ===
> > * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries.
> > * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should
> > make it closer.
> > * ...
> >
> > == How to adopt OmegaWiki ==
> > * Instead of all Wiktionaries.
> > * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for
> > multilingual Wikisource.
> > * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities)
> > * ...?
> >
> > == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki ==
> >
> > === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries ===
> > * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> > features.
> > * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> > * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs.
> > * Importing all data from Wiktionaries.
> >
> > === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries ===
> > * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> > features.
> > * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> >
> > == Licensing ==
> >
> > OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as
> > CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well).
> >
> > * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal
> > problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions,
> > which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least
> > restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license.
> > * ...
> >
> > [[Category:Requests for comments]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiktionary-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Casey Brown-5
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> (Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
> wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])
>

Can you make sure that you leave a note on most Wiktionaries notifying
them of this discussion too?

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
To answer some questions...

   - when some Wiktionary projects are affected by it, then it is for them
   to take or not take the consequences.
   - with more content, OmegaWiki will provide a better service to more
   languages.
   - there has never been an issue with communities, OmegaWiki still has its
   own community. It has different rules then Wikimedia projects (we are not
   afraid to give admin rights to everyone and we do not regret that)
   - When OmegaWiki becomes a WMF project, there will be no split .. why
   would it?
   - OmegaWiki conforms to what is a wiki. Ward Cunningham says so. The
   notion that a project behaves different is normal. Wikibooks, Wiktionary,
   Wikipedia, Commons all have their own little differences. The same is true
   for OmegaWiki.

Yes I can think of more questions, but the motivation for me is that it will
allow us (ie WMF) to do new things. It will improve the ability of people to
more easily find information, pictures. That is what we aim to do. It is
easy to think up what will divide us, it is harder to see that there is a
benefit when we allow for change.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 19 July 2010 17:54, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it would be best to first discuss the general question (if) and
> later more specific questions (how) like the license. Although important,
> it
> is more important to determine if we want this in the first place. Once we
> know that, we can work out the exact conditions from both sides :)
>
> Questions to consider in the if-question would be:
> * How does this influence other projects, both positively and negatively
> * Do we believe there can be a stable community supporting this (this has
> proven to be problematic in the past)
> * Would it be good for OmegaWiki, or would it mean that it would
> practically
> split up and that two competing projects arise?
> * Do we want anything that doesnt work exactly like MediaWiki works in
> enwiki (as in, more database-like), is that a nogo?
>
> Probably you can imagine more questions like this.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2010/7/19 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
>
> > Hoi,
> > OmegaWiki is truly multi lingual in that depending on the amount of
> content
> > available in a language labels and annotations will show up in the
> > preferred
> > language. Recently many of the relevant phrases were localised in Telugu
> > and
> > consequently it became useful in Telugu.
> >
> > When a language is right to left the user interface and the data is shown
> > in
> > the right to left direction.
> >
> > One or the more interesting things of OmegaWiki is that we do have links
> to
> > Commons and Wikipedia. This means that when you look for pictures of a
> > "hobune" you will actually find them. Having links to Wikipedia means
> that
> > they can effectively work as interwiki links.
> >
> > To understand why we at OmegaWiki want the WMF to adopt this project, we
> > have always wanted OmegaWiki to be a WMF project. As far as the
> suggestion
> > goes to end the Wiktionary projects, we have always said that this is for
> > the Wiktionary projects themselves to decide. However particularly for
> the
> > smaller projects the effort of adding content to OmegaWiki is more
> > efficient
> > as more people benefit from work that only needs to be done once.
> >
> > As OmegaWiki has its data in a database, it is possible to use the data
> in
> > applications. This is very much our goal ... we are on record saying
> > "success is when people find an application for our data we did not think
> > off."
> >
> > As to the license, PD would be our preferred license but sadly their are
> > too
> > many people who consider that their must be a license because ... In our
> > view making our data available under a license prevents success. This is
> a
> > reason why we are not interested in "copyright violations".
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 July 2010 09:05, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > (Just poking foundation-l, please continue with discussion at
> > > wiktionary-l, or, better, at Meta [1])
> > >
> > > During Wikimania I asked Gerard Meijssen would he be willing to give
> > > OmegaWiki to Wikimedia. He said that he doesn't have anything against
> > > it: software is free, content is free. More precisely, he told to me
> > > "Take it!" :)
> > >
> > > My initial idea was that it would be the best to replace all
> > > Wiktionaries with OmegaWiki. However, the last day of Wikimania I was
> > > talking with one Swedish guy who is working on Swedish Wiktionary. He
> > > has complained that philologists like more open form for writing
> > > dictionary. Thus, my suggestion is to adopt OmegaWiki as one of
> > > Wiktionaries, probably as http://wiktionary.org/, similarly to the
> > > multilingual Wikisource.
> > >
> > > And, of course, before possible adoption we need discussion and some
> > > software improvements of Wikidata extension.
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
> > >
> > > * * *
> > >
> > > As multilingual projects are not in the scope of the [[Language
> > > committee]], before the implementation (or not) of the idea, community
> > > should discuss about it.
> > >
> > > [http://www.omegawiki.org/ OmegaWiki] is a formal multilingual
> > > dictionary based on MediaWiki extension
> > > [[:mw:Extension:Wikidata|Wikidata]].
> > >
> > > No matter would it be the only Wiktionary or it would be just one of
> > > the Wiktionaries, OmegaWiki would raise quality of Wiktionaries. At
> > > the other side, the project would get much more attention as a
> > > Wikimedia project.
> > >
> > > Wikidata extension should be improved (from user experience and
> > > linguistic points of view) before implementation as Wikimedia project.
> > >
> > > [[User:GerardM|Gerard Meijssen]], the founder of OmegaWiki project,
> > > doesn't have anything against adopting it as a Wikimedia project.
> > >
> > > == Advantages and disadvantages of adopting OmegaWiki ==
> > >
> > > === Advantages ===
> > > * It is possible to create one billion entries per Wiktionary: All
> > > synthetic languages could import at least ~10M of words, but probably
> > > more if all common phrases are counted. Thus, it means that we need
> > > just 100 synthetic or polysynthetic languages to create one billion
> > > entries per Wiktionary. This is very large number and while it is
> > > possible to keep technically one such project, presently it is hardly
> > > possible to keep a number of projects with more than billion of
> > > entries.
> > > * It is structured formally.
> > > * ...
> > >
> > > === Disadvantages ===
> > > * Philologists like more open form for dictionaries.
> > > * OmegaWiki is distant from the wiki principle. Software fixes should
> > > make it closer.
> > > * ...
> > >
> > > == How to adopt OmegaWiki ==
> > > * Instead of all Wiktionaries.
> > > * As www.wiktionary.org, like www.wikisource.org is the place for
> > > multilingual Wikisource.
> > > * As mul.wiktionary.org (ISO 639-5 code for multilingual entities)
> > > * ...?
> > >
> > > == Minimums for adopting OmegaWiki ==
> > >
> > > === If OmegaWiki replaces all Wiktionaries ===
> > > * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> > > features.
> > > * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> > > * Adding all needed features to satisfy philological needs.
> > > * Importing all data from Wiktionaries.
> > >
> > > === If OmegaWiki becomes one of the Wiktionaries ===
> > > * Evaluation of software by linguists and adding necessary linguistic
> > > features.
> > > * Fixing bugs in software if needed.
> > >
> > > == Licensing ==
> > >
> > > OmegaWiki licences are CC-BY and GFDL. It is a bit of pleonasm, as
> > > CC-BY is a subset of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA as well).
> > >
> > > * Licensing should probably stay CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is a legal
> > > problem of copyrighting words, phrases, sentences and definitions,
> > > which mean that it would be probably better to leave the least
> > > restrictive license as the OmegaWiki license.
> > > * ...
> > >
> > > [[Category:Requests for comments]]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Adopting OmegaWiki as Wikimedia project

Muke Tever
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi, OmegaWiki is truly multi lingual in that depending on the amount of  
> content available in a language labels and annotations will show up in  
> the preferred language. Recently many of the relevant phrases were  
> localised in Telugu and consequently it became useful in Telugu.
>
> When a language is right to left the user interface and the data is  
> shown in the right to left direction.
>
> One or the more interesting things of OmegaWiki is that we do have links  
> to Commons and Wikipedia. This means that when you look for pictures of a
> "hobune" you will actually find them. Having links to Wikipedia means  
> that they can effectively work as interwiki links.

These seem more like things that just _aren't_ currently done on  
Wiktionary than things that need Ω because they _can't_ be. (I know the  
first at least was tried, but didn't really catch on, and 'hobune' has had  
a link to et.wiki since 2007—it's only convention that makes these links  
on a by-entry rather than a by-sense basis.)  Given that it does seem to  
be a product of its own culture, I agree with Milos' idea that it would be  
better as a separate Wiktionary, if it needed to take on the name of  
Wiktionary at all.

> As OmegaWiki has its data in a database, it is possible to use the data  
> in applications.

I don't suppose it comes in an ISO 1951:2007-compatible format?
The 'view source' button and Special:Export appear to be broken.  :|


        *Muke!
--
http://twitter.com/kohath

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l