As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Meta:WMF support

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

[The following discussion was copied from Meta:International Beer Parlour. --InfoCan 20:08, 3 April 2012 (CEST)

WMF support?[edit]

I am copying the following comment from Meta:strategy written by User:Sj (User:Sj on MediaWiki Meta-Wiki) to here as it is of interest to the community. --InfoCan 01:23, 2 April 2012 (CEST)

A comment from me in my role as WMF Trustee: OmegaWiki is clearly part of the core Wikimedia mission, and could be suppported by the WMF if that is desired by the community here. It sporadically comes up as an issue that we should consider - most recently at the Board meeting we just concluded in Berlin. Warmly, Sj 07:51, 1 April 2012 (CEST)
  • As one member of the community here I would like to state my desire for WMF supporting OmegaWiki. I would like to see OW develop to its full potential, and I can see that with the limited resources that are available, it will take a long time for that to happen. I can feel that once a critical stage is reached (a faster server response time, more functionality, more content) Omegawiki will become appealing to more volunteer developers and content creators, as well as more end-users. OmegaWiki needs support to reach this point as soon as possible. I believe that WikiMedia Foundation is the best suited to provide this support. OmegaWiki aims to make lexical information freely accessible to all, in a non-commercial way, and this goal is one that is already supported by WMF with the Wiktionary. I also believe that WMF has the wisdom to appreciate that OW represents the next generation of Wiktionary. --InfoCan 01:31, 2 April 2012 (CEST)
  • Same as InfoCan ;-) --Kip 10:05, 2 April 2012 (CEST)
    • I was asked off-wiki whether the above could possible have been an April Fool's joke :-O The answer is, no. The date was a coincidence  :-) I am working to revive the new project creation process. Could interested people here please choose a single wiki page to use to consolidate related discussions? OW is the most obvious project to start with. Sj 04:48, 3 April 2012 (CEST)

[Done, copied to this page. Further discussions will take place here. --InfoCan 20:08, 3 April 2012 (CEST) ]

  • I'm all for it! Actually, this is what we always wanted, it just hasn't happened. --Tosca 16:40, 4 April 2012 (CEST)
  • I am for OmegaWiki becoming WMF project. — Veeven 16:47, 4 April 2012 (CEST)
  • There have been reasons in the past for Omegawiki not becoming a WMF project, which I do not know. If these are gone by now, I do not object, so as to increase chances for further development and flourishing of Omegawiki. --Purodha Blissenbach 21:29, 4 April 2012 (CEST)
  • I'm all for it. It will attract more people, both coders and contributors. To become truly successful and solve Wiktionary's problem of duplicated effort, we need to bridge the gap between Wiktionary's usability and OmegaWiki's structured nature. I believe we can reach this goal more quickly as a WMF project. László 22:32, 4 April 2012 (CEST)
  • Support. I always wondered why we were not (anymore/yet) part of the great WMF family. Klaas V 15:24, 5 April 2012 (CEST)
  • I'd appreciate a support from WMF, but, considering the size of the beast and the fact that has already been excluded from the English Wikipedia for being a company, I'm a bit afraid that the support turn into a swallowing. Specially, many people in the Wikimedia foundation projects seem to be more concerned that the projects generate no indirect profit to the authors than in developping the said projects. Personaly, I'd be happy if, for instance, an Apple employee gave a good definition of a "tablet", I would try to get more companies involved and I would allow a reasonable amount of advertisment (for instance one fix image per page). I don't think the volunteerness is indefinitely extensible, so I think we need another kind of resources too, and rules not to be swallowed by them either. Even if it is not the case now in Omegawiki, I would be reluctant if such a possibility is declared as forbidden for ever because of the WMF partnership. 02:53, 5 April 2012 (CEST)
  • Since the beginning, OW was supposed to be a WMF project. I'm not sure why it hasn't become one. My opinion is still: yes, it should be a WMF project. Malafaya 18:41, 5 April 2012 (CEST)
  • Since I joined OW back in 2006, I've always hoped that this project become a WMF supported project. --Ascánder 11:13, 8 April 2012 (CEST)

To Sj: I believe the above users are the only ones that have been active here for the last 3 months. I have informed another four users who were active during the last year, but not during 2012, about this discussion, but they may not be checking their User Talk pages anymore. Thus, the above comments represent by and large the point of view of the OmegaWiki community. --InfoCan 19:35, 5 April 2012 (CEST)

Perhaps we can participate in WMF's localisation team. Klaas V 18:10, 17 April 2012 (CEST)
I'm not really sure what OmegaWiki as a project has to do with the Wikimedia Localisation team as a development group within the Wikimedia Foundation. Please be aware that I'm also Treasurer of the Open Progress Foundation, which governs OmegaWiki -- been pretty idle here, though :). siebrand 18:28, 17 April 2012 (CEST)
Pleas see my answser there. 07:45, 2 July 2012 (CEST)

OmegaWiki page at WMF[edit]

I communicated with Sam Klein (User:Sj), who told me that a Sister Projects Committee [1] is being formed at WMF. He requested that the community here brings up to date the OmegaWiki page at WMF [2]. It would be most helpful to have a section describing (I am quoting from his email):

  • current project activity
  • current plans and needs (including any requests for support, whatever the community as a whole wants or needs)
  • future plans and potential ideas for integration with Wiktionary or other dictionary projects.

<end quote>

I think it would be good if we discussed these topics here first, then we can place a summary to the OmegaWiki page at WMF. The last meaningful change to that page was made in 2007, so everyone is welcome to comment about whether its contents still accurately reflect the current state of OmegaWiki. --InfoCan 16:42, 25 April 2012 (CEST)

Agree. Sj answered like that on their Meta talk page Klaas V 12:57, 22 May 2012 (CEST)
After reading the page at Meta, except for the abstract, I don't think the rest is relevant anymore, so we would have to rewrite the whole page. Who goes first? --Kip 13:36, 22 May 2012 (CEST)

current project activity[edit]

  • (Kip) Huh we add words... mostly definitions, translations, images and links to Wikipedia. See Special:Ow_statistics.
  • (Kip) Copying translations from Wiktionary whenever possible.
  • (Kip) Cleaning of the automatically imported Gemet data.
  • (Kip) We have a facebook page for the word of the day.
  • (Kip) We have a twitter account for the word of the day.
  • (Kip) We have a active native contributors for Dutch, French, German, Portugese, Spanish, Telugu, Turkish.

current plans and needs[edit]

  • Only one developer (Kip), not very active, and currently mostly working on getting the pages load faster.
  • (Kip) We need developers. Most requested features to develop are:
    • a roll back functionality, so that we can really open editing for everybody
    • inflexion tables, so that we'll have all the functionalities that the current Wiktionaries have
  • (Kip) We need contributors (only 11 languages with more that 10.000 words)

plans and potential ideas for integration with Wiktionary or other dictionary projects[edit]

  • (Kip) A lot of data can be automatically and easily imported from Wiktionary. This includes IPA, genders, declension tables, conjugation tables.
  • (Kip) An automatic import of definitions is probably not possible without either a lot of preparatory work, or a lot of cleanup work afterwards [3]. However, a semi-automatic import of translations could be implemented, where a user copies a list of translation from Wiktionary, in the wiki syntax, and OmegaWik automatically parses this list and converts it to the OmegaWiki format while checking for duplicates.
  • (Kip) The Wordnet dictionary is also structed around concepts. Therefore it would be possible to make links between the Synset of Wordnet and the DefinedMeaning of OmegaWiki, if someone finds an interest for it.