Hi Denny, as Nemo pointed out, that grant is for Wikisource :-) http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** Wikisource_strategic_vision<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision>
We spoke about that briefly in the Office hours: one of the main thing Wikidata could do, I think, is to centralize cross-wiki links, the very same way it centralized interlinks. I don't know how difficult could it be, but I sense this would be a breakthrough for all sister projects. We could review the Sister template, and make cross-wiki navigation much more easy and useful. Aubrey On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>wrote: > Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52: > > There is currently a number of things going on re the future of >> Wiktionary. >> >> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could >> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again, >> structured data is often rather easy to transform): >> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki> >> > >> >> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, >> which I consider a potentially smarter first step: >> >> < >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** >> Wikisource_strategic_vision<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision> >> >>> >>> > That's Wikisource. :) > > > >> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself: >> >> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary> >> > >> >> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this >> direction. >> >> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia >> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource >> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both >> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, >> Commons much less than Wiktionary). >> > > Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia; > Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same > way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter > definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; > Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. > As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit > a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies > idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become > > > I would appreciate a discussion with >> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the >> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to >> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata >> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was >> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and >> careful planning over hastened decisions. >> > > It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters. > > Nemo > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
