Le 2013-04-05 19:44, Sebastian Hellmann a écrit :
Hi Mathieu,
Am 05.04.2013 11:56, schrieb Mathieu Stumpf:
I added the dbpedia wiktionary entry on [1]. I wasn't aware of your
effort, despite being really interesting in the wiktionary future.
Could you please read [1] and update it with your vision as a dbpedia
contributor?
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary_future
this page is interesting, but seems to be very idealistic. I am not
sure, every language community agrees to use a common model. I also
wonder if this is possible at all and whether there is an overlap. Do
you think it makes sense to edit that page? Normally, there is a lot
of talk and planning and nothing comes around in the end.
I would present that in an other way which would to say that this page
try to adress the problem with long term perpectives, but with real
concrete goals. Sure you can't reach the one solution that will make
everybody happy, but making people talk together of their specifics
issues and expectations from wikitionaries is a path which I think worth
to be explored. To my mind, this should help us to have a better
overview of various linguistic knowledge people are expecting to find in
wiktionnaries, and how to improve the transmission of this knowledge
between each chapters.
As it is said on the page, this is not a trivial problem, because it
asks to gather a lot of linguistic expertise, as well as think about the
UX we want to provide to end users and facilitate for third parties.
Note that the good thing about Wiktionary is, that you can add
information freely without adhering to a preset structure.
Yes and no. Sure if you don't count with the wikisyntax, there are no
specific structure imposed to wiktionnaries chapters. But in practice,
you know that they did adopted a more or less rigid structure, because
that was relevant. But now we are in a situation where each chapter have
its own idiom of templates, that not only make harder to automate
cross-chapter information transmission, but also can make newcommers
affraid. This is a really serious issue, I know that at least for the
french chapter, we are losing wannabe contributor, because of heavy use
we make of template. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the french
wiktionary community, to my mind it's an upstream issue.
You know that having more editors is one of our community goals, don't
you? Well, to have more editor, we have to make the participating
leurning curve as small as possible. And that require a good UX. And
that require a well thought end-user interface/API integration. I have
no doubt it will be really difficult to integrate the Visual Editor into
the french wiktionary for example, because articles there heavily relies
on templates, and as far as I know, the Visual Editor doesn't provide
(yet?) any tool to structure information further than
section/bold/italic. But in the french wiktionary, even sections are
created using templates!
DBpedia is already implementing adapters to load data from WikiData.
So Once WikiData is working for Wiktionary, we will have data from
there and from the remaining Wikisyntax and merge them.DBpedia and
WikiData have a loose cooperation for a joint task in a Google Summer
of Code proposal.
Well, that's great, we need such a work to be done too. Thank you to do
it.
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
