Hi all,
Japanese Wiktionary has been unlocked since Monday, June 12, just
after four months locking period to restart. After re-launching, over
60 new articles have been submitted and some were speedily deleted ;-)
Thank you for your help, encouragement and understanding during our
hardest days and your help and cooperation for re-launching project
will be appreciated as well as former ones.
Valeto,
--
Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
Hi,
Congratulations !
BTW, this should be sent to the Wiktionary list.
I updated the portal and the statistics.
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary www page
Date: Wednesday 18 May 2005 07:20
From: "James R. Johnson"
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Hello,
I just wanted to inform the list that the Anglo-Saxon wiktionary
has over 100 entries!
Later,
James
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
I think that GNU FDL is perfectly fine for Ultimate Wiktionary and there
is no need to change the license. The license is perfectly compatible
with the .DICT format, so there should be no problems at all.
Thinking about how to import data from wiktionary in the ultimate
wiktionary may pose a few puzzles with respect to FDL compliance, but I
don't see any significant problems. The import script should keep track
of who contributed to a chunk of data and take note of that fact. The
history may be a little more problematic, and I think we will want to
get advice on exactly how to do it.
But changing the license to something else would require throwing away
all existing work in wiktionary, which seems quite unwise to me.
--Jimbo
Milos Rancic wrote:
>(To correct myself...)
>
>I think that there is no need to avoid GNU FDL terms. Just put
>gzipped/bzip2ed history inside of package and in all of articles
>put reference (that contribution history can be found in that file).
>
>
Hoi,
Apparantly you do not understand that there are several issues that make
the GNU-FDL not practical.
*Wiktionary data cannot be imported properly into Ultimate Wiktionary.
UW has no room for gzipped or bzipped history. It is a server side
database and nobody is going to see the information in this way.
*Ultimate Wiktionary will import data from many Wiktionaries, the first
one could be the nl:wiktionary. Many articles have been copied to and
from the it:wiktionary. Suppose an article is shared, it arrived first
from the nl:wikipedia so that one rules.. right ? Now what history
should we have with the article ?? From a GNU-FDL point of view it is
unforseen, crazy.
*When we keep all these histories, who can say it is "my" work? I
contributed to it ??
*When we export content to the .dict or RFC 2229 format, this is a
subset of the data that we have on a word, a concept. We have the UW
history and all these Wiktionary histories. Histories for each word.
Histories for possibly a file with a few fields like: "Word"
"Description" "Translation" "Original source". The amount of bagage that
we should carry according to the GNU-FDL is unforseen and crazy. It just
does not make sense. It is also data that has no stucture. Who will ever
look at it ??
My conclusion is that the current GNU-FDL does not funtion for atomic
information like we will have in Ultimate Wiktionary. When it prevents
the implementation of new use for the data that we have, it becomes a
hindrance. The goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to make Free
information available. When a license like the GNU-FDL only allows for
server side information that has a static structure, I am sure that even
Richard Stallman will find the arguments to ammend the GNU-FDL compelling.
One crucial thing in all this is that Free information should stay Free
and be accessible. The current Wiktionary data is as closed as any
proprietary datacollection. This is because of its lack of structure. It
cannot be used for anything but server side information. Ultimate
Wiktionary intends to combine the strength of the information that we
have in all our wiktionaries, it will be structured. It does allow
accessibility and new innovative uses. By being Free, accessible and
innovative, we will gain a much wider public, these will not only be
users of our data but also providers of data. This is what we aim for.
In the current nl:wiktionary we have people and organisations like
FrankC and www.ziekenhuis.nl who contributed big time to the content of
Wiktionary. We do need to recognise their contributions. They donated
important body of works but we also have people like MARCEL and S.V.E.T
who added content on a regular basis, it is important that we recognise
their hard work and their contributions. They make and made it the
success it is. So if anything, we should find a way to honour the
members of our Wiktionary community as we move forward to an Ultimate
Wiktionary.
Thanks,
GerardM
>>>> I guess "old-school" is probably a good term. I have very little
involvement on the technical side of things. I do find it a chore to insert
a picture or a table, but I figure it out when I have to. When templates
appear in an article that I am editing, I need to make extra effort just to
track where some of them come from or what they mean. If I, as a person who
has been here for over three years, am having trouble with this, it must be
worse for a non-technical person who just wants to indulge his love of
words.
I too am alarmed at the proposal, as much as I have seen it. I am
technical(well, used to be) 28 years in the computer industry, starting at
the most technical levels of system programming, but over the years
migrating to the role of helping general business users get the best out of
systems, as business analyst, system designer, project manager.
One thing I learned was - never let a technician design a system. It will be
great for the technician's personal uses, but a huge chance it will be
useless to the general users.
Like Ec I find even the present level of codification annoyingly
complicated. Requiring any significant level of codification from general
users would just knock out 99%of the population form being contributors,
asituation we cannot go towards.
>From what little I have learned so far of this idea, including the complete
lack of communication with the user community, the idea of introducing a new
more technical Ultimate Wiktionary sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Richardb
rb_wiktionary(a)boult.mailshell.com
This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to
send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies.
The content may reveal an address you can use.
Gustav Vella wrote:
>Hi Erik and Gerard,
>
>ok the current documentation :
>On 5/30/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Notes
>>
>>
>
>has emphasis on the wikidata concept, which was briefly introduced to
>me by Magnus.
>
>
>
>>2) developing and testing the best possible schema for Ultimate Wiktionary.
>>
>>
>seems to be the last point on your roadmap but have you any
>documentation on a UW schema draft so far? I cant find anything. I'd
>be particularly interest to know
>- Where do you cut an interface between language universal and
>language specific schemacomponents?
>-- are there any guidlines for the language specific schema components?
>- Are you working on basis of the EAGLES standard ?
>- How are you handling eqivalence lists
>- how are you handling semantic fields (fixed categories? vs keyword bag?)
>
>
>- is there some place other than the mailing list to contribute to the
>schema design? somewhere on metawiki?
>
>and finally what are your first opinions on the schema? everything
>clear? does it fit into your concepts? Do you want me to translate the
>documentation?
>
>Best regards from Cologne
>
>Gustav
>
Hoi Gustav,
At this moment we have not identified for ourselves many language
specific components. What we have identified is that a meaning and an
etymology are language dependent. I have explicitly NOT published any
schema that I could come up with because I find that it is much better
to have many schema's and discuss what is needed and why. So far it has
proven me right.
The first schema of Ultimate Wiktionary mark 1 may be lacking in some
respects. But the idea with UW is to have a base scheme, get acquainted
with what we do and ammend it. The base will be base and open for
improvements. The idea is to change the scheme on a regular basis based
on the experience that we gain and based on the functionality that we want.
At this moment in time we are building up to the moment where we DO
start talking schema's in earnest. So if you have proposals as to an
EAGLES standard the handling of equivalence lists semantic fields this
is the time to propose.
Please publish on META and use the category "Wiktionary"
Thanks,
GerardM
>>>Are there objections from old-school wiktionarians to the ultimate
wiktionary plans? Is it possible that we could address these objections
through code?
I've been an active administrator on Wiktionary for some months now. But
only recently subscribed to the mailing list - only just noticing that such
a thing exists.
So this discussion of the Ultimate Wiktionary comes as a complete surprise
to me.
Which is even more alarming as somewhere in Wiki-.org land there is clearly
a policy that all changes etc must be notified and approved through the web
site. The mailing list is only an ancillary means of communication.
So I would suggest whoever is managing the idea of change needs to lift
their game in keeping the active Wiktionary community informed.
Richardb
rb_wiktionary(a)boult.mailshell.com
This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to
send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies.
The content may reveal an address you can use.