Mailing List Archive

....but Lingoz isn't under a free license, is it?

On 10/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
I have seen it. It is not a wiki, it has a user interface that is available
in several languages. But for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I had a look at the work "filosofie" and found many words that were words
associated with that are clearly not, then again I was happily surprised
that they had the word Jimi (a language from Cameroon).

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.

Thanks,
GerardM

http://lingoz.com/en/dictionary/filosofie
http://lingoz.com/en/dictionary/Jimi

http://www.omegawiki.org/Expression:presumptuous
http://lingoz.com/nl/dictionary/presumptuous
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presumptuous

On 10/3/07, David Gerard < dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 03/10/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
>
>
> - d.
>

"The editorial back-and-forth process that works so well for
encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia seems less successful when applied to
defining dictionary terms, a process more suited towards voting on
multiple versions of a definition."

Sadly, this sounds like nonsense from someone that has never considered
a dictionary before. He's made the critical error of assuming that a
dictionary is something that tells us what to say, and that
Wiktionarians are involved in deciding what is Right and what is Wrong
(as if NPOV is a concept limited to encyclopedias). In fact, we use
citations to verify disputed word meanings, and are only involved in
documenting all words in all languages, as they are used, not as only as
they are "supposed" to be used. (spam:
<http://www.dictionaryevangelist.com/2007/08/request-denied.html>) There
are lots of things I would like to see improved about Wiktionary. Lots.
But the premise that a wiki is not suitable for a dictionary has no
merit. The premise that an unfree, commercial, bloglike one, with no
apparent standards, and which I can't even fix being an alternative to
Wiktionary is one that I can't even fathom.

Meanwhile, an improved Urban Dictionary (of course, another "reference"
I can't even fathom using), what this site looks to become, isn't what
we need. I'm searching desperately for the "edit" tab to correct the
mangled capitalization of "Blog Fog," the term on the "Hot Definition"
on the main page, of which 98 people approved (99 now; testing confirms
that I can't vote against without logging in, but I can vote for it
without an account--further testing shows that even with an account you
need 50 "points" for a down vote; I couldn't even do anything about
blatant spam except send my comment marking it as a "mistake" off into
the ether ). Apparently hotness is judged in terms of popularity, and
not accuracy.

Oh well, I'm off to go think up the coolest word I make up, and see if I
can make it to the main page. :-)

Dominic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
>
>
> - d.
>

http://lingoz.com/en/pages/copyright_notice.aspx

przykuta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 04/10/2007, Przykuta <przykuta@o2.pl> wrote:

> > http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/

> http://lingoz.com/en/pages/copyright_notice.aspx


So they can expect the worldbeating success of the Open Directory Project, then.

(My usual example of why making your data free content is important.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/4/07, Przykuta <przykuta@o2.pl> wrote:
> > http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/

> http://lingoz.com/en/pages/copyright_notice.aspx

And of course it would never occur to the TechCrunch folks to point
such a thing out. After all, it's a successful example of
"crowdsourcing":

http://wikiangela.com/images/evanprodromouslide11CCBYCanada25.png

--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2007/10/3, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> I have seen it. It is not a wiki, it has a user interface that is available
> in several languages. But for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> I had a look at the work "filosofie" and found many words that were words
> associated with that are clearly not, then again I was happily surprised
> that they had the word Jimi (a language from Cameroon).

Looking at it, I get the impression that those are not 'associated'
words, but words that are similar in spelling.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 04/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/10/2007, Przykuta <przykuta@o2.pl> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
>
> > http://lingoz.com/en/pages/copyright_notice.aspx
>
>
> So they can expect the worldbeating success of the Open Directory Project, then.
>
> (My usual example of why making your data free content is important.)

I don't get it. Isn't this page more relevant?
http://lingoz.com/en/pages/terms_of_use.aspx
specifically
"You will continue to own all the rights you may have with respect to
your content. This means that your rights concerning the Content you
have contributed to us will not be claimed by Babylon as the property
of Babylon. "

Still build-our-product-for-us-for-nothing, but having a look at the
site I can understand why one would prefer to edit it than
Wiktionary...in a purely aesthetic sense.

cheers,
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
It is a red herring. When you add facts to a resource you cannot claim
copyright to it in the first place. What is of interest is that you grant
perpetual rights to the data.

Another question, so you did enter data there .. now how do you get it out
again ?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 10/4/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 04/10/2007, Przykuta <przykuta@o2.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/02/lingoz-wiktionary-done-right/
> >
> > > http://lingoz.com/en/pages/copyright_notice.aspx
> >
> >
> > So they can expect the worldbeating success of the Open Directory
> Project, then.
> >
> > (My usual example of why making your data free content is important.)
>
> I don't get it. Isn't this page more relevant?
> http://lingoz.com/en/pages/terms_of_use.aspx
> specifically
> "You will continue to own all the rights you may have with respect to
> your content. This means that your rights concerning the Content you
> have contributed to us will not be claimed by Babylon as the property
> of Babylon. "
>
> Still build-our-product-for-us-for-nothing, but having a look at the
> site I can understand why one would prefer to edit it than
> Wiktionary...in a purely aesthetic sense.
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l