2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive/Switching between dictionaries (religious, philosophical, scientific). Like switching between languages.

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

⬅ Back to Archive


NoN Requires community consensus

  • Problem: Any term refers to a dictionary. Currently, the Wikidata provides the user with terms from a mixture of dictionaries (religious + philosophical + scientific+common). The user can only switch between mixed dictionaries of different languages. He can not switch between dictionaries of one language (religious, philosophical, or scientific). But mixing dictionaries and increases chaos: worsens transitivity, leads to constant conflicts, struggle for the one whose dictionary should first point to the object being modeled (with the help of the Wikidata's virtual tool) (see human/Homo sapiens sapiens, god/God, origin of human, world, universe, etc.), 1/one, 2/two, etc.).
  • Who would benefit: Users who need transitivity.
  • Proposed solution: To make a choice of the dictionary necessary to the user (by analogy with a choice of the language necessary for the user). The user selects the language, then selects the dictionary (religious, philosophical or scientific) and makes a description. As a result, the same simulated object of the world (human/Homo sapiens sapiens) will only have one item (Q5).
    When you select a dictionary, the foreign link of the item (subclasses, properties, etc.) should be hidden. If you chose, for example, a religious dictionary, you should not see links to items that relate to the scientific and philosophical dictionaries. In this case, the concept of "neutrality" is not needed at all, for there will be no hostile points of view (they will remain each in their own dictionary).
  • More comments: Wikipedia does not have a switch even from one language to another. If the Wikidata will be able to switch between dictionaries (religious, philosophical, scientific, general), then Wikipedia will finally become atavism and rudiment, focused only on humans, but not on machine readability.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

What does the community think about this? Do you have consensus from those who are supposed to maintain this? Max Semenik (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not poll, I do not know how to poll all users who need transitivity. --Fractaler (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Do not endorse. I don't think the Wikidata community wants this, to the extent that "this" is even well-defined. ChristianKl (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you afraid of transitivity, because then the ideology of ontology based on properties will lose? Fractaler (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Archived[edit]

I've archived this proposal because it requires maintenance of the proposed system by the Wikidata community, and therefore consensus. Without consensus, we can't start implementing the software parts. Thanks for participating in our survey. Max Semenik (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)