Larry Sanger | 6 Apr 2001 23:39

Boston and Russia, here I come

Dear all,

I'm going to Boston and then Russia!

These last few weeks and the next few have been and are going to be a
bit hectic for me.  I've got the plane tickets, the passport, the
laptop, Jimbo's blessing ;-), money saved, and the visa is on its way.
I have much else to get ready, of course.  So if I seem a bit slow in
replying and short in my replies, that might explain it.  (Another
explanation I guiltily admit is that I have been helping Wikipedia
along.  But I have been vowing to spend more time on the more important
project, viz., Nupedia, now that Wikipedia really is moving along
wonderfully.)

From April 18 until the 26th I'll be in Boston visiting a pal of mine
and playing music.  Of course, since I work online, I will be able to
take my new laptop and work there as usual without missing a beat.  If
anyone's there who would like to get together, drop me an e-mail.  (I
still would like to meet with a few members who live here in Las Vegas,
but the best-laid plans...)

After that, I will be living in Izhevsk, Russia, an industrial city in
the central-western part of European Russia, for an indefinite period of
time, but probably about three months.  My Russian language skills are
sure to improve immensely.  I've lived abroad before and I enjoy the
experience.  I don't expect any disruptions to my connection, and while
I might be taking a few vacation days here and there, I generally should
be able to continue on in my present role in pretty much the same way I
always have.

(Continue reading)

Larry Sanger | 7 Apr 2001 04:00

New logo

I think Wikipedia's logo is groovy, but it says nothing about the fact
that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  That was my first thought.  Then I
looked at a page and imagined that I had just stumbled across it on the
net, and had no idea what it was about.  It is simply not immediately
obvious that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!

So, maybe what we could do is have a logo that says that Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia.  At the same time we might adopt a slogan, something like
"The user-created encyclopedia."  Ideas?

Larry

Jimmy Wales | 8 Apr 2001 04:25

Re: New logo

Along these lines, I've been thinking of modifying the page so that
there's a block of text (similar in look to the Nupedia attribution
requirement) that says something short and to the point.  "This is
a User Created Encyclopedia.  Click <a>here</a> to learn how to 
contribute."

When they click there, they get to some of our pages about how to
contribute, how to make pages, etc.

Other ideas would be:
"Wikipedia: The user created encyclopedia with 2,173 articles!  Click
<a>here</a> to learn how to contribute!"

Where the count is updated automatically from time to time.

Larry Sanger wrote:

> I think Wikipedia's logo is groovy, but it says nothing about the fact
> that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  That was my first thought.  Then I
> looked at a page and imagined that I had just stumbled across it on the
> net, and had no idea what it was about.  It is simply not immediately
> obvious that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!
> 
> So, maybe what we could do is have a logo that says that Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia.  At the same time we might adopt a slogan, something like
> "The user-created encyclopedia."  Ideas?
> 
> Larry
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
(Continue reading)

Larry Sanger | 17 Apr 2001 19:50

Wiktionary

We could make www.wiktionary.com -- a wiki-based dictionary.  I probably
wouldn't want to work much on it myself, but other people might.

Larry

Jimmy Wales | 17 Apr 2001 22:54

Re: Wiktionary

This is a great idea.  We could even seed it with an existing out-of-copyright
dictionary.

I'm not sure that the wiki software is the right thing to use for this, though.
The wiki "style" is exactly right for it, but there are probably some added
features that would make a dictionary much better.

Larry Sanger wrote:

> We could make www.wiktionary.com -- a wiki-based dictionary.  I probably
> wouldn't want to work much on it myself, but other people might.
> 
> Larry
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************

rose.parks | 17 Apr 2001 23:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Wiktionary

Hi,

     I am wondering what the purpose of a wiki 
dictionary is. A dictionary normally gives 
the "standard" definition of a word, based on a great 
deal of research, the pronunciation, using that 
dictionaries own guide, an etymology in some 
dictionaries, and examples of usage, in some 
dictionaries.
    Are we in a position to determine "standard" usage 
and, if so, on what basis?
    There are numerous online dictionaries with good 
reputations. What can we do to improve on this?
     Is this a place to "dump" entries that are 
definitional and no more?

          As Ever,

             Ruth Ifcher

--
			
> We could make www.wiktionary.com -- a wiki-based dictionary.  I probably
> wouldn't want to work much on it myself, but other people might.
> 
> Larry
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
(Continue reading)

lcrocker | 18 Apr 2001 03:01

Re: Wiktionary


I can see three major advantages of a Wiktionary over a traditional 
online dictionary, and several disadvantages.  On the positive side, 
(1) it would not be constrained by space limitations, so it could be 
completely unabridged, contain many examples and citations, and be 
more clearly written with fewer abbreviations etc., (2) it could take 
advantage of the specialized knowledge of readers beyond what 
lexicographers would be interested in, especially useful for 
technical terms that many dictionaries, frankly, get just plain 
wrong, and (3) it would be open content.

The major disadvantage, as Rose points out, is that Wikification puts 
at risk a lot of good research by lexicographers, and would sacrifice 
the their credibility.  It would also suffer Wikipedia's depth-versus-
breadth problems, and probably encourage production of lots of 
frivolous content for slang-of-the-moment and such.

Perhaps something like a user-annotated but not directly editable 
version?  The dictionary could be seeded from a credible paper 
dictionary source and the main entries protected from editing; 
then "discussion" pages attached to each entry (and free-form new 
entries) could be added to by users, and some formal editing process 
could be used to update the formal entries when appropriate from the 
information gathered.

Just an idea.
0
Jimmy Wales | 18 Apr 2001 04:04

Re: Wiktionary

I like LDC's variant on the idea.  The original (public domain)
version could be held sacrosanct.  Visitors could leave commentary,
add new meanings, and even add new words.  (I don't think any public
domain dictionaries will have a definition of the word 'sendmail', for
example.)  But the new stuff would always appear slightly separated
from the original.

I don't think this should be a "ghetto" for too-short wikipedia entries,
but a separate thing.  And I think that the software should be as simple
and easy to use as wiki software, but made especially for this project.

I could write a super simple version pretty quickly.

Does anyone know where I can get a sensibly-delimited public domain dictionary
to get started?  I know that one exists somewhere.

--Jimbo

--

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************

rose.parks | 18 Apr 2001 14:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Wiktionary

Hi,

     My only suggestion is that whatever dictionary you 
use as base should be current. Part of what "standard 
usage" means is "current usage."
     You might have sections for "new words" and a place 
to add unusual, but fairly main stream uses of common 
words.
     That would put new words, that is "coined words"
say alphabetically at the end. New usages could be added 
to the main entries in the read-write area. Of course, 
such usages would be better documented with the source, 
sort of like the OED, allowing all media as sources.

     Just a suggestion.

           As Ever,

             Ruth Ifcher

--
			
> I like LDC's variant on the idea.  The original (public domain)
> version could be held sacrosanct.  Visitors could leave commentary,
> add new meanings, and even add new words.  (I don't think any public
> domain dictionaries will have a definition of the word 'sendmail', for
> example.)  But the new stuff would always appear slightly separated
> from the original.
> 
> I don't think this should be a "ghetto" for too-short wikipedia entries,
(Continue reading)

Cindy Lynn Seeley | 18 Apr 2001 15:13

RE: Wiktionary

A place to start might be here.  This search resulted in 329 dictionaries.
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10000-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=src
h&qt=dictionary&cn=&ca=10000

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-admin@...
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@...]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:05 PM
To: wikipedia-l@...
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary

I like LDC's variant on the idea.  The original (public domain)
version could be held sacrosanct.  Visitors could leave commentary,
add new meanings, and even add new words.  (I don't think any public
domain dictionaries will have a definition of the word 'sendmail', for
example.)  But the new stuff would always appear slightly separated
from the original.

I don't think this should be a "ghetto" for too-short wikipedia entries,
but a separate thing.  And I think that the software should be as simple
and easy to use as wiki software, but made especially for this project.

I could write a super simple version pretty quickly.

Does anyone know where I can get a sensibly-delimited public domain
dictionary
to get started?  I know that one exists somewhere.

--Jimbo

(Continue reading)


Gmane