Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Wikifusion

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


Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)[edit]

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)[edit]

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.


  • This is surprisingly good. It will probably be transliterated, but the English word "fusion" was already loaned to many languages so it won't be too hard, and to some languages it can probably be even translated, so Hebrew could be both ויקיפיוז׳ן or ויקיהיתוך, whatever the community will prefer. Russian can probably be Викифьюжн or maybe Викисплав (there could also be other options). --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You can also see a link to the term "diffusion" (which is also a process with multiple input but many more outputs than a simple "function"). If you see "fusion", it exhibits first the many inputs. "Diffusion" is also used in French for "liste de diffusion" (mailing list), which also performs a transform from many inputs, can create a summary, change the format, then redistribute the composed input to many recipients with various formatting options (including some possible translations where possible).
      • This is also looking less "technical" than the term "abstract" used above to describe things, it will frighten less people than "function" (too much related to mathematics, including the term "lambda" related to calculus and formal computing languages, or to personal positions/roles at work or in organizations). But the initial examples are still very technical and concentrate only on a few basic datatypes and the "Asbtract" project seems to be larger: if we include features demonstrated above, we should have IA technologies. And translation is also just a final step for the presentation so just a small part of the goal (even if it's important, it also requires for itself a "fusion" process where various types of sources are merged to produce something else and increase the number of outputs). the term "Abstract" seems wrong as well due to the usual meaning which is just to produce a summary: it.e. taking lot of input but generating a simplified/reduced aggregate, hiding some details. I correlate the term "fusion" with "merge" (also like in the feature used since long in word processors to create many personalized letters from a template and a data source, or to create large documents or creating large indexes for collections of documents). For me this project also has strong links with the search engine (which could be extended in Wikimedia to provide more services than just plain text search without any intelligence).
      • Note also that this "fusion" feature could also be used as an interesting tool for monitoring changes in wikis, and help detect abuses: it is not limited to produce contents intended to be read by all users in all languages, it could compute many other things, including metrics and surveys (and it could also be used in A/B tests for new features for some communities with volunteers). It should also be usable with other no-text contents, notably Wikidata/Wikibase and Semanticwiki. verdy_p (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also note that I found this older use of the name, for a quite similar old project in Wikimedia : Wikifusion (which tried to unite Wikipedia and Wiktionnary, in a more modest goal, using linkage rather than content generation: this goal is fully covered by Wikidata today). this name exists and is published in Wikimedia since 2005.
      • It predates other use, notably "FusionWiki" (the label displayed on http://wiki.fusenet.eu/) which was the result of the merging of two separate wikis speaking of nuclear fusion (notably for energy production), under the scope of "fusenet" in Europe (notably around ITER). "Fusionwiki" was a subdomain in a Spanish wiki created in 2009, it kept the displayed name (without registering it because it could not; if you look at its logo, you may eventually read it top to bottom as "wiki! Fusion", but the text description says "Fusionwiki", not "Wikifusion") even if it was transferred to fusenet.
      • Wikimedia was in 2005 the first to use the Wikifusion term and even if this was for a project now archived, it has still been published all the time since 15 years! So Fusenet (official) or now Fusionwiki (unformal since 2009) cannot contest this continuous use by the Wikimedia community. When Fusionwiki was created in Spain in 2009, the Wikimedia project was still active and already published worldwide by Wikimedia. No one has contested it since 15 years, so Wikimedia could in fact contest the informal use of "Fusionwiki" by Fusenet (they did not ask for legal council before broowing the Spanish subdomain name), but a court would probably state that this is different from Wikifusion which is unambiguously owned and used by the Wikimedia community and that we can safely reactivate for a more interesting larger goal, whose vision as a necessary component of AbstractWikipedia was already drafted/visioned 15 years ago. verdy_p (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Amir E. Aharoni, Fusion is not english. It's a germanic and romanic word which derives from lation fusio. It is used internationally. Cheers Sargoth (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like this, as well as "Wikilambda." It just seems cool, and you can easily imagine that this "fusion" process includes Abstract Wikipedia. (My strong preference is for a name that incorporates the Abstract Wikipedia-side of the project.) --Chris.Cooley (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Outside of the box, but might be fitting and appropriate for multilingual use.--Pharos (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]