[Foundation-l] Lingoz vs Wiktionary

Wed Oct 3 20:17:18 UTC 2007

Hoi,
I think it is more a matter of showing off against what can be perceived as
a big boy in this space. Wiktionary is doing well from a traffic point of
view. It's quality has improved immensely over the last two years. It is
also the article that makes the comparison, as I indicated I do not think it
is that great. I wonder who the target audience is.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 10/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The title of the article is presumptuous, as I said it is not a wiki,
> you
> > can add definitions, but you cannot change the other information. This
> is
> > not necessarily bad but not being able to edit what is there ... I would
> say
> > that Wiktionary is better at that. So I compared "presumptuous", and I
> like
> > it that OmegaWiki shows the data in my native language. Wiktionary
> covers
> > more meanings and well, if lingoz is Wiktionary done right, I do not
> know
> > what went wrong.
>
>
> I'm more surprised and pleased that Wiktionary has achieved sufficient
> prominence that someone thinks competing against it is a business
> model :-)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>