Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group

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

Contents

[edit]

A first draft for a logo.

Hi,

It is very early to discuss a logo, but to communicate and create user boxes, we need one. So, I sent a request for the user group to be accepted officially. Until a positive answer, we are not very authorize to use Wikimedia trademark. Well, I am very enthusiast today so I made a draft to propose a suggestion for a logo. feel free to comment and suggest a better one! Noé (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A second draft for a logo.
I have been working on another idea; I used only preexistent characters from wikt’s logo for the moment, but others may fit better (especially for the green part) — Ltrlg (talk) – 10:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: It work without the tile, too. Not sure which one I find better, both are fine.
I think the first proposal is very understandable. Nemo 18:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Wikimedia Community Logo
It is very early. Personally, I think of wiktionary as a literary and linguistic tool/community; I usually think of tiles as toys/games. I would like to see a derivative of ethe Wikimedia Community Logo for an affiliation group, since it suggests it is a community. It is also not a trademark of the WMF, and therefore does not require permission to create a derivative, and does not require approval in order to use it. See wmf:Trademark_policy, wmf:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. The Wiktionary logos are trademarked by the Foundation as well, so any derivatives of those would likewise require permission and approval. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes,it is early but we need to discuss this topic to build the group. You're right about the community logo, but anyway, we need to discuss before to ask for an approval. The tile logo is Wiktionary official trademark, this project is known widely with this picture and favicon, so it makes sense to have it for the user group. Personaly I like the idea of compounds and reorganisation of letters and meanings, so tiles makes a good allegory for language production. Please, share any suggestions you have to produce collectively throught a good democratic practice, I am still trying to figure out how to do so. --Noé (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Un wiktionnaire logo début
The tile logo is an official logo, as is Brion Vibber's words logo. Compounds and reorganisations of (unconnected) letters are not words, or lexemes, which are what I feel is the core of the Wiktionary project after the people who make up its communities. In some respects this is the central disagreement which has in the past failed to achieve consensus. The tiles logo was created by, and perhaps for, people who were not wiktionarians, so for some people the tiles logo can never be acceptable. Common icons related to dictionaries (and spell-checking, a common use for dictionaries) for english-speakers are [abc] + checkmark7, 'Aa'8, and a book shape with the word 'Dictionary' on the cover9. Each of these icon concepts has previously been proposed, and rejected, by historic communities - but the current population may accept one or another of these.
That said, I believe the WTG, having a goal to be User Group, would likely benefit from a logo which is related to wikimedian community, and linguistics. (Interesting images from linguistics sites: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 They all use text to express the idea.) - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 03:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

2017[edit]

Proposal for a logo.

I made a new draft based on the community logo + Wiktionary logo central character. I am sorry, I do not know how to do .svg files. So, do you support this idea or do you have other suggestions? Noé (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is an idea, since Wiktionary is about document speech chunks, what about a using a speech ballon chuncked and being assemble as the Wikipedia globe logo? --Psychoslave (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I imagine it properly so feel free to make a draft! Well, a comment: the globe logo stand for Wikipedia, not for Wiktionary. This W is more representative. A tile can also be a symbol, but not for all Wiktionaries and some English contributors do not like it. Noé (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Name of the group[edit]

Hi all,

I started a process for doing this group an official user group and the name do not fit very well with the Naming guidelines so we are asked to change for another one. Is Tremendous Wiktionary User Group sounds good for you? Acronym can be TWUG, almost THUG, so we can have a great logo with sunglasses at some point! Any opposition on this name or alternative suggestions? Noé (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pamputt: if no one is against it, can you please rename this page to Tremendous Wiktionary User Group? (si personne ne s'oppose, serait-il possible de renommer la page, ce qui nécessite des droits d'administrateur de traduction) Noé (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok I will do it, not sure if translation admin right are needed but I checked and I can do it. I will do it on Monday if nobody oppose. Pamputt (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Pamputt (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How to create a Wiktionary in another language.[edit]

Hi, I am a long-time wikipedia user, and I have contributed to wikipedia English, Italian and Neapolitan versions.

I have just noticed that there is no Wiktionary in Neapolitan, and I would like to create one.

I didn't find any information on how to create a new Wiktionary project, so I thought to ask here.

Thank you!

--Oakwood (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to first create it in the Wikimedia Incubator. It will only be created as a real project once the test-project in the Incubator is active enough. Amqui (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi!

There is an on-going Community Wishlist Survey November 9 to 20 and there is a specific attention for small projects this time. It is an opportunity for Wiktionaries to be taking in account by the Tech Community!

It's time to write suggestions and ideas and to endorse ideas for Wiktionaries!

Update Novembre 25th: Unexpected but there is a section dedicated to Wiktionary this year! Go read the four proposal and support them! Noé (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet helpSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

19:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Way to alert Wiktionary community[edit]

Hi, I am looking for the most efficient way to ping every participant of the groupe (user registered here. So if someone with technical skills could give some advice, it would be great. The idea is to find an easy way to notify every participant at the same time. I think this could be very useful to inform participants of the Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group that discussion about Wiktionary is ongoing. This is currently the case with that one on Wikidata. I guess something like a brutal call like this should work :D

Notifications only works if you sign it and put names and signature in one single edit Noé (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
So, […], you are invited to have a look at this discussion. Noé (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the way to ping very participants of the user groupe, we can probably adapat Modèle:Notif projet from the French Wikipedia. I let a message here in order to have a look and try something later. Pamputt (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Template:Ping project from Wikidata is better. It uses Template:Participants (and its sub-pages) and Module:Wikitext. The best is probably to import them here and to adapt them then. Yet, I have not the rights to import them. Stryn, as an admin, could you do it? BTW, what is the policy of template and module on Meta? Do you need to announce these imports somewhere? It can probably be useful for other user groups. Pamputt (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Pamputt it's not possible to import pages from Wikidata, see Help:Import#Transwiki_import. So someone should create a phabricator task, but it would require consensus on Meta. Stryn (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Annual Report[edit]

Hello, as an official affiliate of the Wikimedia movement, it is expected that we produce an annual report of our activities. This report is expected to be delivered at the end of September. I think we will not have any problem to write it since a lot of stuffs have been done during this first year. I will try to contribute to this report in the following weeks. You can bring your ideas here. Pamputt (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I started the report, looking at Wikisource's one. I haven't found any guideline on how to ask for a renewal or to write this report, so any suggestion welcome! Noé (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Beta feature: advanced filters and more options for Watchlists, starting September 5[edit]

Rc-beta-tour-welcome-ltr.gif

Hello!

I'm posting this message to your Tremendous Group because I think I'll have more impact this way: I'm sure you can spread the word to your community better than me! ;)

As you may already know, the Global Collaboration team has created a Beta feature. This feature is on your wiki since few months: "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽". You can activate it in your Beta preferences.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked. It adds new features that ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations, including filtering by namespace or tagged edits.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring. It helps quick identification of changes that matter to you.
  • Bookmarking to keep your favorite configurations of filters ready to be used.
  • Quality and Intent Filters - those filters use ORES predictions. They identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need help.

You can know more about this project by visiting the quick tour help page.

What's new?

On September 5, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all new features available on Recent Changes Beta now.

If you have already activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽", you have no action to take. If you haven't activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽" and you want to try the filters on Watchlists, please go to your Beta preferences on September 6. It will not be possible to try the filters only on Recent Changes or only on Watchlist.

Please also note that later in September, some changes will happen on Recent Changes. We will release some features at the moment available in Beta as default features. This will impact all users, but we will provide an option to opt-out. I'll recontact you with a more precise schedule and all the details very soon.

You can ping me if you have questions. And I hope this process works for you!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: you are an official user group, but your're not in the affiliates template. Normal? Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit about you "PS" statement? What are you referring to when you say "affiliates template"? --Psychoslave (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Someone told me "oh, they aren't on the affiliates template". But I don't remember who. And apparently you are. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The tremendous group is not listed in this template: Template:Affiliates Noé (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed Noé (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization of subpages[edit]

Hi!

I made some changes in the organization of the subpages. I made a clearer distinction between what we done internally and what other people do with or about Wiktionaries. Also, I create the last via I want to explore with this group: meetings! I imagine it can become an agenda and also a place to share idea and form task forces to build specific actions. I hope it is not worst than before and I stay open for feedbacks! Noé (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for new friends...[edit]

(Alright, sorry for the clickbait-ish title.) My name is Erica and I work with the Technical Collaboration team at WMF.

I sure hope you know everything about us, and in particular about how we want to work more and better with groups such as the tech ambassadors and the tech translators. We have added Wiktionary (well, your group!) among the communities for which we hope to identify a few contacts soon to start working with them even closer.

So please go add yourselves at Tech/Ambassadors/List (or tell others to)! We hope this will lead to a happier and more serene way of working together in the technical field. Thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I think I am too much of a dreamer to be a good contact, but some people I know may like to do this, like JackPotte, Darkdadaah or Automatik. Maybe they also know people in other community that may help too. Noé (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
(Hey, that's what the "Other ambassadors" column is there about though ;) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC) )

Hey @Elitre (WMF):, next time try with a […] in your message, you might reach more people in the group. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Maybe document that somewhere? Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Strategy Direction endorsement[edit]

Hi everybody. From yesterday it is asked to affiliate whether they want to endorse the strategy direction of the Wikimedia movement. Other user groups have already endorsed this direction. Do you think the TWUG should endrose it as well? From my point of view, I see no reason not to endorse this direction since itis based on the broad outlines of the strategy that has been the strategy of the movement since its inception. On the other hand, the text is flat overall and provides almost nothing new; it is not a good signal for the next 15 years. Supporting him is not a big commitment. Pamputt (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

As staff I can't give you a yes or a no, but just some advice: you should define an action you will take in X days if no one has replied. For instance, if you think endorsing it worse it, you can say that you will sign on behalf of the group in 15 days. Or the opposite. Or something else. :) Trizek (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not in favor of endorsing this text, for few reasons:
  • "Most of the content we have created is in the form of long-form encyclopedia articles and still images" and later "We must continue to write encyclopedia articles, develop software, donate money, curate data, remix artwork, or all of the above. " There is no attention for the kind of contribution people do on Wikisources, Wikidata or Wiktionaries. We did already much more than that.
  • "There are also opportunities for Wikimedia to fill a gap in education, by offering learning materials and communities" No mention of Wikibooks nor Wikiversity. I don't get what "offering communities" means.
  • "We need to challenge inequalities of access and contribution, whether their cause is social, political, or technical." I don't think my contribution will do that, and I do not think sharing knowledge and challenge inequalities is the same fight. I do both, but knowledge do not reduce inequalities. I feel this is a naive statement.
  • "The utility, global reach, and large audience of the Wikimedia platform give us legitimacy and credibility." Argumentum ad populum, it is not a good base for an argumentation.
  • "As a service to users, we need to build the platform for knowledge or, in jargon, provide knowledge as a service." Make no sense to me. I feel it is related to the possibilities to use knowledge in the economic market and I am not interested to defend this as a goal.
  • "Many of our efforts will benefit all users and projects equally." oooh so maybe there will be no more small projects and "at least 25% of Tech development will be dedicated to small projects". I do not think this sentence represent an exact vision of what the WMF plan to do.
  • "Our openness will ensure that our decisions are fair, that we are accountable to one another, and that we act in the public interest." Accountability is not that easy to set and structure. Openness is not enough, it sounds like a magic word here, and I don't buy it.
  • "We will focus on highly structured information to facilitate its exchange and reuse in multiple contexts." and in the following paragraph " We will extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on under-served communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America." I don't think those people need structured information. For me, exchange and reuse is interesting but not a priority in regard of the needs of under-served communities.
My main concern is the lack of interest for the diversity of knowledge and the idea of knowledge as a service. I am open to discuss if the User Group want to sign it, and I may change my mind if someone can explain why we need so much to endorse it. Noé (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the flatness of the proposal, and in a sense, that's a good result for such a proposal. Actually, as show Noé answer, there is still room for improvement to address community concerns, but probably you can not content everyone on everything.
So, endorsing or not this proposal, per se, is not really significant as it doesn't engage to anything new. And as a chapter member, I did actually voted as "neural".
But as a member of the TWUG I would argue that we should endorse it, just as I did on the wikisource-l mailling list: not that much to mark our support, but for mere promotional perspectives of our project. --Psychoslave (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidataconv 2017 live stream about[edit]

Hello,

Following a message on wikimedia-l from Léa Lacroix (see bellow), I inform you that this Sunday at 11am Berlin local time will happen a Wikidata + Wiktionary: lexicographical data for everyone session. There is a live streaming and an etherpad for those who – like me – wasn't able to go to the event.


What makes me happy today: the WikidataCon, the first international
conference dedicated to the WIkidata community, is about to start, and will
be live-streamed
The link to access the livestream is: http://streaming.media.ccc.de/
wikidatacon2017
The conference will be broadcasted from today at *11:00 (UTC+2)*, starting
with the talk "State of the project" by Lydia Pintscher. The content
of the *rooms
A, A1, A2 and A3* will be streamed, unless the speaker requests not to be
recorded.
You can find the program here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/
Wikidata:WikidataCon_2017/Program/Saturday
The videos will also be available later under CC-BY-SA: I'll share the
links with you as soon as possible.
Best,

--Psychoslave (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in, you can replay the conference here. Pamputt (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Afterwards comments[edit]

So it's done.

Report draft is in etherpad. There was more questions than reported so far, so I suggest anyone interested to watch the whole video once it is online.

Thank you @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): for the conference. I'll be happy to also have an answer about my late question in the pad: would it be possible to have an exploration of an other "ontology", based on "vocable" (concrete segments of discourse transcription) rather than "lexems" (language elements abstracted under flexionnal paradigm), in parallel with this project? A lexeme based ontology can't include all data which pertains a vocable based approach, but one might reuse most data from the former in the later and some of the later in the former, so bridges would be possible.

Also in your answer to the license question, you say it needs discussions, so please define where it should be discussed, and let's do it, and let's launch a process that is transparently seeking community feedback and achieving some form of community consensus on this point. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't machine readable ???? O_o WTF ! It's one of the most readable project for machines in the wikimedia galaxy ! Are they real devs ? --Lyokoï (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking the same when I saw the talk. But what she said is that it is machine readable for only one project at time. And that is true. One can develop a parser or the French Wiktionary but one has to do the same from scratch to parse the English Wiktionary, and again for other languages. Pamputt (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the meaning was « Wiktionaries are not easy to parse » and indeed it's not easy (just do a quick Google search, you'll find that a lot of people ask how to parse Wiktionary with very few answer). The fact that others projects are harder to parse (which is true, except for Wikidata or specific part like infoboxes) just make Wiktionaries the easiest project to parse, not a project easy to parse (on a scale from 1 to 10, being at 5 when others are at 3 doesn't make it a 10 ;) ). I myself tried to look how to do something similar to Google ngrams based on Wikisources and Wiktionaries but I gave up, in part because the Wiktionaries are not easy to parse (I'll wait for L-items in Wikidata). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My enthusiasm for this project didn't grew up very much with this update. In this proposal, I heard much more advantages for other people to exploit Wiktionaries to do an economical product than the benefits for readers or contributors. I really like the mention of new tools may be build with Wikidata but it is still a empty promise (in French un vœu pieux) and Lydia did not specify that her team do not plan this step. It is totally speculative and I am, as a contributor, firstly interested by this part of the project. Also, mentioning the possibility of creating lessons based on Wiktionaries content is nice, but to forget Wikibooks made me very sad. There is a place to develop it inside the Wikimedia projects, not only outside for people that seek for free data to get more money by selling apps. Well, I already expressed my opinion on this development several times, and raised a lot of problems. I feel some of my concern were taken seriously and others were postpone to an hypothetic discussion (like for CC BY-SA or CC0 issue and the forking menace). I am interested in participating in the step that concern contributors and the data itself. Noé (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


By the way, I started a project research on the French Wikiversity to enquiry how the CC0 came to be the Wikidata license in the first place, and what have been the Wikimedian community opinion about that. So far I wrote a plan and started gathering sources. Feel free to participate. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful tools for Wiktionary editors[edit]

@Noé: You rightfully said I didn't spend a lot of time talking about the tools that can be build for Wiktionary editors once we have structured lexicographical data. One of the reasons is that I don't want to come from the outside and tell you which tools would be best for you to make your work easier. Even for Wikidata so far it was often other people who came up with the best ideas for new tools because they needed them to make their work easier. I do have some ideas of course but I'd like to hear if there is anything that you really want or need. Maybe Léa can help set up a page to collect all our ideas and then we can see which of them can be done by my team, which will be done by volunteers, which we can get students for and which are not realistic. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia, and thanks for this clarification. Will be happy to give you more work to do Face-smile.svg As a starting point, I suggest you have a look at our eight suggestions for the Tech Community, wrote for the on-going survey. You may be able to handle some of those proposals, or see how to improve some of them with/by/through Wikidata. I realize it can be touchy to fix a long-term plan based on structured lexicographical data but I imagine more commitment from the wiktionarians and also more people eager to collaborate to your project if it benefits to the community directly, readers or contributors. With Lyokoï, we did a lot of presentations and workshop and the first problem for peoples is the complexity of the structure. I would love to have something similar as Wikisource books edition, but still compatible with raw text editing. An interface that make easier to add a synonym, a new definition, an attestation or anything else, without an inquiry to with the appropriate template. We'll be happy to work on a list with you all Face-smile.svg Noé (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Noé,
With Lydia, we went carefully through the proposals from the Community Wishlist Survey. Some of them are really interesting!
  1. Add "insert attestation" to Visual Editor: I'd like to know more about this. I'm not sure I understand the difference between "attestation", the references, and what some Wiktionaries have in their "Citation" tab :) I'd also like to know more about the usual workflow to add attestations. Is it something you usually add at the same moment when writing a definition, or it's more like "at some point I start working on it and I add thousand of them on a row"? In any case, we could think about an external tool, a bit like the Wikidata games, that would allow users to add quickly some attestations to Wiktionary through Wikidata.
  2. Share templates on Wiktionaries: just a quick comment on this proposal: it is also possible to build customizable templates, that display different information depending on parameters one assign to them. For example to adapt the name of the tenses. Obviously, if some part of the data is centrally stored and displayed on Wiktionaries, this idea of global templates would be even more feasible.
  3. Parse dumps for DICT clients: I don't know the specificities of DICT, but generating automatic dumps is quite easy with Wikibase, we already do that for Wikidata (and the Query Service is built on it) so it would be also easy to replicate for lexicographical data.
  4. Wikisource dictionaries for Wiktionary: If Wikisource is able to provide a tag/anchor/link directly to a word in their texts, which I'm not sure about, we could add a statement in the Lexemes to point to this word (or at least, to the page of the book where it's used). Therefore, lexicographical data in Wikidata will make this feature easier to build.
  5. Custom list for language learner: this tool could definitely be built on the top of Lexemes. With their unique identifiers, it will make very easy for the developers to store (locally or online) a list of words.
You also mentioned creating a list of ideas that could improve the life of Wiktionary editors and readers. It is now created :) I added only one example and didn't copy the content from the Community Wishlist, but feel free to add your own ideas and share it with people who may want to work on this. We will follow this page with attention, provide comments and technical feedback, and even if we can't promise to fullfill all of the wishes, we will definitely analyze them and consider some of them as part of our development plan.
Thanks for this constructive discussion (and I'll answer your other message below very soon) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: October 2017[edit]

L&E Newsletter / Volume 4 / Issue 14 / October 2017
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of Wikidata to create a multi-lingual multi-dialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects[edit]

You might be interested by the following message posted on 6 November 2017 at 23:13 by abdelwaheb turki on wikimedia-l <quote>

   Dear Ms.,
   I thank you for your answer. You did not cite my presentation about using Wikidata to create a multi-lingual multi-dialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects in AICCSA 2017 held last week. In fact, my presentation was successful and had been attended by Prof. Mustafa Jarrar and Prof. Ashraf Elnagar, ones of the most prominent specialists in Arabic Natural Language Processing. I will write a report about it and I will publish the proceedings papers, the presentation slides and the transcription of my speech online after the final official publication of my work in IEEE Xplore.
   Yours Sincerely,
   Houcemeddine Turki 

</quote>

Which was followed by a message from @Lea Lacroix (WMDE):.

<quote> Hello, In fact, we announced it in the newsletter of next week: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Status_updates/2017_10_30 Feel free to send me the slides and report when you have it, I'll be happy to include it in the next newsletter. Best, Léa </quote>

--Psychoslave (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Psychoslave (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Progress report of the inquiry regarding Wikidata and its license practises[edit]

Unfortunately, so far, my concerns regarding the way Wikidata manage license issues only increased. For those who speak French you are welcome to read La licence CC-0 de Wikidata, origine du choix, enjeux, et prospections sur les aspects de gouvernance communautaire et d’équité contributive, contributions are also warmly welcome. It's still a work in progress, but it already provide many references, and some analyse of the current situation.

I think that everybody that is affected by the Wikidata project should be aware that the CC0 it use was – as far as I was able to find – mainly pushed by Denny Vrandečić who is now working for Google on the Knowledge Graph, Google which was also a major initial funder of the Wikidata project. Currently, my personal feeling is that Wikidata looks like a giant Trojan horse instigated by some giant for-profit tech companies. But I stay open to any evidence that I'm completely wrong, hopefully I am.

I'm sad that @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): have still not yet replied to the proposal above of discussing concerns of our group. As far as I'm concerned they are:

  • how will be the license lexicological extension of Wikidata be choose;
  • if this will CC0 because the wikidata team decided it with no consultation of the Wikitonaries community: how do you expect the project won't come in direct head-on opposition with our Wiktionary communities and projects?

As previous informal engagement from the Wikidata team to not allow massive import from Wikipedia for both license reason and avoid bad circular references was not respected, I think that – sadly – only a formal contractual and firm commitment to not allow massive import from Wikitionaries might give enough credit to such a potential promise, if they ever dare to respond to this message with such an intent. Note that this is also based on the hypothesis that this project will be CC0 licensed, if it goes with CC-BY-SA, you'll count me as a fervent contributor and promoter.

In hope that we will receive answers that reassure us and dissipate current impressions of Wikimedia hijack, Psychoslave (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Psychoslave (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Psychoslave and all,
This is only a short preliminary answer. We are aware of your concerns and I'll also follow with attention the research work you're preparing. We take these seriously and we are currently preparing a more elaborate and detailed answer, also compiling the sources to rebuild the history of the decision regarding choosing CC-0. This takes a bit of time because we're asking several people, diving deep in the archives of mailing-lists and wikis ;) But I hope that in a few days, we'll be able to provide more groundwork to continue the discussion about the license, the next steps of the lexicographical data project and how we hope to work together with the Wiktionaries communities.
Best, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I like feedback just to say you are at work Face-smile.svg (I am not cynical, I really think it is a good practice.) In a way, I feel confuse by the expression "rebuild the history" but I am sure you will share your investigation in a wiki-way, with plenty sources, and I think this make a very nice Wikiversity/Wikipedia article on this matter Face-smile.svg Noé (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Lea Lacroix (WMDE):, I join @Noé: in its warm welcome for this communication. Communication is difficult, probably the most difficult problem we have to deal with on a daily base, so every effort which seems to go in the right direction should be saluted. I also join him in its demand to well source you statements. To my mind, this is probably the most important topic I ever have been involved within Wikimedia, because I have strong concerns for the future of our beloved Wikimedia community depending on this topic of Wikidata license. One may say I'm giving exaggerated importance, I have my own bias, but being aware of that won't make my concerns disappear magically. Thus said, this bias are not leading me against Wikidata, as I'm afraid it might looks like. So it's maybe not too much to recall that, this license problem apart, I utterly adhere to Wikidata as I see it as an extremely powerful and versatile tool whose real potential for our Wikimedia community (and users beyond it) goes much further than what it already revealed. Also I'm using critique in order to find solutions, just grumbling is worthless. And sure I would prefer to dedicate time to other Wikimedia contributions than this research, although as I'm doing it, I do learn a lot of things and it does pay with some new ideas. Actually, I submitted this proposal in the 2017 technical wishlist thanks to ideas I didn't have before I started the research project. Feel free to use and contribute directly to the Wikiversity project, as indeed you are! Also feedback on the wishlist proposal is warmly welcome. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Psychoslave, I am on vacation since right after WikidataCon. I will be back next week and catching up with things. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Great @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, enjoy your vacations, thank you for taking the time to precise you won't be available to respond before your return. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

On the "mainly pushed by", note that CC-0 is nowadays a standard recommended by most for most open data efforts, so it doesn't take a big effort to understand why most people gave it for granted. It's true of course that few open data projects are as complex as Wikidata (let alone Wikidata + Wiktionary). Nemo 20:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nemo bis:. Well, it doesn't really say much about the source of "standard recommended", as "most open data" is a fuzzy term which doesn't enable to check specific actors and what led them to that kind of recommendation. I'm fine with government releasing data in public domain or its closest legal equivalent. Also, letting people use whatever free license is fine – even CC0 –, just as it's done on Commons. But forcing them to systematically withdraw all legal rights they have is a point everybody should be cautious about. Mass import of material from sources which are not licensed under CC0 should not be permitted until solid legal investigation provide evidence of its legality which is highly doubtful. The rhetoric which try to mix facts, a single factual statement, data carrying such a statement, and database of millions of that kind of statements is not a convincing argument for the legality of such a practice. Provide legal facts about what can be done what can not be done within the project should be the first duty of Wikidata, rather than throw random personal feelings about what is fine according to this or that Wikidata stackholder. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi, @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) and Lea Lacroix (WMDE):, any news concerning your progress on this topic? --Psychoslave (talk)

Hey, I'm sorry. I am on it but it is taking me longer to put my thinking into writing in a coherent way than I had hoped and I need to reach out to the legal team still. I'll get back to you before next week. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey folks :) I have put my general thinking about Wikidata and CC-0 here now. I hope this makes the reasons for CC-0 a bit clearer for the bigger picture. There is one thing I would like to add here: There was fear about people importing data from Wiktionary that is protected there into Wikidata and thereby violating the license of Wiktionary. License violations are obviously a thing I am not ok with and that I will speak out against. My current understanding is that this covers the senses part of Wiktionary for example. Since I am not a lawyer however I am still talking to the legal team to get a better understanding of what is and what is not protected. I'll let you know when I know more. Have a good rest of the weekend. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia, great to see we move on this topic. I am still very confuse by your idea "My current understanding is that this covers the senses part of Wiktionary for example." What do you mean by "senses part"? Legal protection is based on creative performance, and there is a subjective perception of this performance. For example, lexicographers consider that writing a definition is a creative task. It is not only true from a wiktionarian perspective but also for published dictionaries. So, in my opinion, definitions are CC BY-SA and will not be extracted from Wiktionaries to Wikidata. You suggested to let people write glosses instead, or new definitions in CC0 in Wikidata. If so, how to control those new definitions to be sure it is not pale copies of definitions already published in Wiktionaries? Noé (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Noé:, and thanks for your feedback.
First of all, we don't deny that the work achieved for years on the Wiktionaries is valuable. We are aware that collecting the definitions step by step is a huge amount of work, just like collecting, cleaning and organizing data on Wikidata is. The project we're running to include lexicographical data in Wikidata is not meant to minimize the work of editors in any way, but to help them in their tasks and make their lives easier.
"the senses part" means the sense section of our data model, that you can find in this example. In almost all the parts of this example, what we will store in the database are facts. Saying that "hard" is an adjective in English is a fact. Saying that its grammatical feature is "normative" is a fact. Saying that “harder” is the comparative form or “hard” is a fact, and so on.
Now, let's look at the summary of database rights proposed by the WMF legal team. Quote: "A database is protected by copyright when the selection or arrangement is original and creative. [...] Databases that meet this level of creativity are protected as compilations". We agree that the Wiktionaries are compilations of information that are selected and organized in a creative way.
One can also read on the next part: "For many databases, the data contained in them is not protected even if the database itself is protected as a compilation. For example, factual data is not protected by copyright. This includes dates, names, locations, heights, weights, and other measures or statistics, and many other types of purely factual data. A database containing the dates and locations of important historical events would likely be a protected compilation, because the author made certain choices in deciding which events to include. However, the dates and locations themselves are unprotected facts. It would likely not be a violation of copyright law to extract and use that information, but it would likely be a violation to copy the entire database."
The facts that are previously cited as example enter under this definition of factual data, and therefore can't be protected. One entire Wiktionary, or even one single page of it, is protected as a collection, and can't be copied identically without respecting the terms of CC-BY-SA.
The goal of lexicographical data on Wikidata is not to copy the whole Wiktionaries as they are. It is to store the facts, the data, in a complete and neutral way, so the Wiktionary editors can reuse them, if they want, to create their collections.
Back to the Senses: some parts of this section are quite borderline. We're not sure that the synonyms, antonyms, can be considered as factual data or not. We’re pretty sure that the glosses, short sentences like “presenting difficulty” are protected. This is the point that we're still investigating on.
About the automatic extraction: no massive extraction of content will be made by the Wikidata development team. We will not actively push the editors for massive import. We will communicate to all communities about the project, the difference between Wiktionary pages and Lexemes, to avoid any misunderstanding. But in the end, the communities add the content. If they follow the principles of the Wikimedia projects, we are not preventing them to edit. We are not judging if some content is "pale copie" (which is quite a subjective appreciation) of some other. Some Wiktionary users already shared with us their will to include data in Wikidata and experiment on displaying it on Wiktionary. We will provide the technical structure, let the editors test it, adapt it to their needs, and answer as best to their requests in term of features and uses.
I hope this answers to your questions. Once again, we commit to work in collaboration with the Wiktionaries communities, since we’re working together to improve the content of the Wikimedia projects :) Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


An answer to Lydia general thinking about Wikidata and CC-0[edit]

Hi,

Thank you @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): for taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised.

Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikida came from. But as this inquiry on the topic advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work. Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]. To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact that was the community that was the driving force behind this single license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics.

Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.

Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in Our strategic direction: Service and Equity. Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.
CC-0 is one step towards that.
That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to agree without some convincing proof.
Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more extensively.
No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view, no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.
Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.


Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a map and much more.
Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2] of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of random bytes.
This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only helped to get the result).
No, it doesn't mean that.
First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this goals.
Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable on demand.
What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves.
Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition" is fine.
This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds of data points in a mobile app).
OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who cares?
This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.
Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy with questions of equity and traceability?
It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our community.
Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database rights for more details.
It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world, it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing.
So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be enforceable in some jurisdictions.
What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight against the growing asymmetry that social structures are concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct conflict with our goal of equitably spreading knowledge.
Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.
Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement and it alarmingly looks like license laundering. This is true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd sourcing.
So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny.
Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources.
No there are not. They are used as a way to try to make it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources in inequitable manners. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally advantage the former.
The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works.
Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library is stated proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. This might be generalised as big companies have the advantage of money; free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each other. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors which are related to big companies.
Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker who can not deal with it.
If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters.
With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available for everyone.
And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be achieved.
We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build something amazing.
And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license. Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought the company that was running it, and after they imported it under CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import, Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial support and no hegemonic position.
Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more places than just the few big ones.
No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce their position in which they can distribute information manipulated as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses would be far more effective to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge that focus efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege, as stated in Our strategic direction: Service and Equity.


CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
Just like economic inequality. But that is not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts.
Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require different means. States and their institutions can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's great. States are rarely threatened by companies, they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this statement.
Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw of all their rights as single option to contribute.
All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved.
That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data.
Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.
This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine included of course.
Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate feeling of satisfaction for some people.

--Psychoslave (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december
  2. according to the next statement of Lydia
For the record, the same message has been posted on wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org and received multiples answers. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 08:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): "All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved." So it is in the best interest of all parties to do it, yet you were saying the reverse all in the rest of your text? If it is really in the best interest of all parties, as I agree it is, why not encourage it with the proper license? Amqui (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This would mean that Wikidata should use CC-by licence (not CC-by-sa)? Pamputt (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I am saying that it is in the interest of all involved to mention Wikidata as the source of the data. That is different from forcing them to do it via the license and forcing it to happen on a more fine-grained level (to specific editors etc.). --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2018 - Registration closes in one month![edit]

Dears […]

Next year there will be a new Wikimedia Conference session in Berlin. It would be good to send there people to talk in the name of the TWUG.

The original message[edit]

Bellow is the original message that was sent on wikimedia-l mailling list.

Dear Wikimedians,

Thanks to those of you who have already registered for the Wikimedia Conference 2018 – we are already very excited to host the conference from April 20 to April 22, 2018 in Berlin!

Registration information[edit]

You have not registered for the conference yet? Your affiliation is eligible [1] to attend the conference and you have been selected to represent your affiliation in Berlin? Then please be kindly reminded to register until Monday, January 15, 2018. To register for the conference, please find the link to the registration form below. [2]

Holiday break of the organizing team[edit]

In view of the upcoming holidays, we would like to inform you that the WMCON18 organizing team will be out of the office from December 22, 2017 until January 3, 2018.

If you need assistance or have any questions, we recommend you to contact us before December 22. Otherwise, we will respond to your emails as soon as possible upon our return.

Visa information[edit]

We strongly advise all those of you who need a visa to register until Monday, December 18, 2017.

We will do our best to send the documents (letter of invitation, foreign travel health insurance, copy of registration of association of WMDE) by December 22, 2017, which are needed for the visa application process, to everyone, who registers until Monday, December 18, 2017. Should you register after this date, we will prepare and send the documents to you beginning of January.

Further information on the visa process and assistance can be found on Meta. [3]

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Daniela & Michelle on behalf of the organizing team Wikimedia Deutschland wmcon@wikimedia.de


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria e [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Registration_Information#Registration_link

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Visa_Process_and_Assistance

Proposals and discussions on who to send[edit]

Please, feel free to propose anyone that you would estimate a good representative for our group. Keep in mind that this session is a lot of talk, mainly in English. Also, obviously, the person must agree and be available at the time of the event. All the more, some people might already go to the event due to their involvement in the Wikimedia movement on other sides. For example Lyokoï might go there as a Wikimedia France board member, and Tpt already expressed on Wikisource-l that he was "probably not the best person to talk with people so [he] believe[s] it would be much better fo the user group to send someone else that would represent the group better". --Psychoslave (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's better to send new people, let me ask on the Italian Wiktionary village pump. --Nemo 13:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Nemo bis:, I'm looking forward to hearing from you and others TWUG members. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree too that it would be really nice to be able to send someone over there to speak about the TWUG. I missed the first message because of the holidays so maybe it is the same for other people. For myself, I am not available at this period so I cannot go. Pamputt (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I would be available, so please consider my application as a TWUG delegate. For information, there are two slots, so it would be good to have at least three candidates. --Psychoslave (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Delegation?[edit]

Hi,

I am not sure about the idea of sending someone to speak on the behalf of the User Group. We do not act as a group for now, and we basically never do any meetings or ingroup decisions. It is rather a space to exchange about Wiktionary and get people working together. Until now, there is no common idea in the group, and I do not want to write a manifest for it, I prefer the diversity of point of view and a structure without any hierarchy. So, I am in favor of helping two people to get there to speak about Wiktionaries and meet other peoples to share idea on our beloved project, but not to defend the existence of the group. Plus, I'll be happy to have a feedback on how other people reacts to Wiktionary, to smell the temperature as we say in French (prendre la température), but not to promote a specific direction. In particular, I do not want TWUG delegate to sign any support for the 2017 Movement Strategy in the name of the group. If nothing is voted in the group, the so-called delegate will have no delegation to use. I'll be happy to discuss this opinion, and read feedback on how others considers the group. Noé (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Noé I agree with almost everything you wrote. I agree that it would be interesting to send someone at this Wikimedia Conference to speak mainly about the Wiktionary project but I think he/she could also speak a bit about the TWUG even to say what you wrote (it is not (yet?) an organised user group that has a common opinion, we cannot pronounce ourselves on the 2017 Movement Strategy, the position of the user group about Wikidata and so on) because it could motivate new people to join this user group. I do not think it could be bad to speak about TWUG if these points are clearly presented. Pamputt (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Face-smile.svg Noé (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Noé:,

Until now, there is no common idea in the group, and I do not want to write a manifest for it, I prefer the diversity of point of view and a structure without any hierarchy.
It's all a matter of definition (of course ;), but I don't see any requirement of hierarchy to form a group. Just joining together to discuss is enough to form a group, isn't it?
Plus, I'll be happy to have a feedback on how other people reacts to Wiktionary, to smell the temperature as we say in French (prendre la température), but not to promote a specific direction.
Here I disagree, because I keep in mind the adage "if you don't care about the direction, someone will take care of it for you". And as I perceive it currently, a direction is already being actively pushed in a top-to-bottom fashion. Now we, as a group, still have plenty of time to discuss and formalize bottom-up goals that we want to push as a broad direction, whether it does or does not match with the one proposed otherwise.
In particular, I do not want TWUG delegate to sign any support for the 2017 Movement Strategy in the name of the group. If nothing is voted in the group, the so-called delegate will have no delegation to use. I'll be happy to discuss this opinion, and read feedback on how others considers the group.
I'm fine with that. I think we can create far better result through broad discussion targeting consensus than delegation to a far smaller group of people that will, despite all their good will, always have a narrower vision of issues. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Psychoslave:,

On the first point, I didn't mean I want a hierarchy, I said I consider that the TWUG do not have any common idea. On hierarchy, I published a translation of an article by Joreen, you may be interested to read it: original and translation

On the second one, we haven't discuss about a direction for the group. You have your own opinion, and you may express it, but as yours not as the opinion of the group. There is a difference between a mandate and a constraint mandate (in French, un mandat et un mandat impératif) and here I prefer a constraint mandate saying that you do not vote for a position when there was no vote for it in the group in prior. I'm not sure to be clear, so I came back to French: un mandat impératif qui implique de n'exprimer la position du groupe que lorsque celui-ci l'a déjà discuté ou voté précédemment. Looking at the group now, this imply to give only your own personal opinion, because we did not discuss anything yet. Is it clearer? Noé (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. For the second point, it seems clear to me, although not clearer than previously. The main point you seems worried about, as I understand it, is that I (currently) have some opinions that might differ from what a consensual discussion might come with. So we do have to make this discussion happen before this event, so whoever goes there, will have the appropriate information to express the consensual willed direction. Only after that, we may see where there is an actual opinion gap between mine and the consensual one, if any. Would the gap be too large, I would of course no longer be interested to make the voice of the group. But I think it's very unlikely. So most probably I should be able to just put my diverging point of view apart to expose the consensual one. Also, I doubt that this session is about taking firm decision with participants acting as group chosen deciders. I would more expect it to be a session to discuss and expose important points for each represented groups, and thereafter make a report to each group of provided feedback. --Psychoslave (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions to prepare the Conference[edit]

On Wikimedia Conference page, there is a list of questions to be send to the delegate in a way to prepare the conference. Here is a copy of that:

Movement Strategy

  • What does “Knowledge as a service“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?
    • See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
      The paragraph is: "Knowledge as a service: To serve our users, we will become a platform that serves open knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We will build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Our infrastructure will enable us and others to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge."
  • What does “Knowledge equity“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?
    • See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
      The paragraph is: "Knowledge equity: As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
  • What kind of conditions do you need to realize these activities?
    • Describe what you think would be good conditions for you to move forward in this direction. Think of conditions in the broadest sense; e.g., capacity, skills, partnerships, clarification, structures and processes, room for development or experimentation, financial resources, people, access to other means of support etc.

Movement Partnerships

  • Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you can imagine to share or talk about during the Wikimedia Conference?
  • Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you would like to learn about during the Wikimedia Conference?
  • During the first half year of 2018 (for example, at the Wikimedia Conference) we will discuss how to realize what we have endorsed in the Wikimedia movement’s “Strategic Direction”. What is your wish or hope regarding Partnerships within and beyond the Wikimedia movement based on the Strategic Direction?
  • What do you need to fulfill this wish or hope? *

Capacity Building

  • Please name one or two skills, tools, or resources, that you want to be able to bring back home to your local organization/group.
  • How can you contribute to the Wikimedia Conference? What skills, knowledge or insights can you bring to share that others can learn/benefit from?

I think it is interesting questions, and I think it is funny to question what does "knowledge as a service" means, because I am quite sure no one know. These questions convinced me not to go there, but I'll be pleased to see what you all can answer to it. Noé (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Noé: for highlighting this question. I propose that […] provide feedback on each dedicated section below. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What does “Knowledge as a service“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?[edit]

I think that "knowledge as a service" makes huge sense for wikitionary, because by its lexicolgical goal it provides rather obvious recurring needs it can answer as a service platform, and could largely be improved on this model. Providing homogeneous tools to answer questions about word inflections, synonyms, antonyms, translations and other misc. word relations makes a great match with the idea of "knowledge as a service".

On the other hand, it's not all about "knowledge" consumption", but there is a great deal about improving participation easiness, including for oral traditions. On this side both Lingua Libre and Wiki Speaks Your Language are already leading the way, but still miss integration in the main Wikimedia contribution interfaces.

See also:

Psychoslave (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the question refer to the position of the User Group, not the position of Wiktionary community. For me, I have no idea of the meaning of the expression "knowledge as a service", I consider it means nothing for the future activities of the TWUG. Noé (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
To me the TWUG must serve the community, as well as it can. I recognize it can not wholly represent the full diversity of the community, but it should seek to extract the main issues that the community encounter and that have chances to be resolved through a user group effort. I already gave some hint of my own view of what kind of service could be promoted by the TWUG. I would be happy to have critical feedback on this vision. --Psychoslave (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What does “Knowledge equity“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?[edit]

The first thing which come to my mind pertain to gender gap, as we do have a dedicated project within the French Wiktionary and that gender gap is an important topic in our community.

Dictionaries, contrary to what might commonly guess, are often subject to vehicle profound biases. Their definitions and citation might include or highlight many segregationist biases, of course. But even the way they classify words are often presented as "empirical facts" rather than "statements based on some linguistic theories".

That was more for the internal part of the equity topic. But there is also a more "around/social" part pertaining to equity. My very own main concern on this topic is related to how CC0 is pushed as unique option to contribute to Wikidata, so far, and its expected extension to lexicographic matter. Although in many cases I think a copyleft license is better from a social equity perspective, I'm also personally perfectly fine with using non-copyleft free licenses for some works – an extensive part of my later translation works are under an MIT license. And I'm promoting public-domain-like licenses for any work existing thanks to public funding. But I find the CC0 license totally inappropriate to meet the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Systematic withdrawing all rights of contributors is at the extreme opposite of knowledge equity. All the more, not requiring attribution means not favouring traceability of information, which is an other crucial point of our common goal to achieve trustable knowledge data banks. Psychoslave (talk)

The project Parité des genres in French Wiktionary is not about gender gap, it's about correcting a bad habits in French dictionary that is to describe masculine nouns more extensively that feminine nouns. This project do not aim at reinforcing the presence of women as contributors, and will probably not have this result.
Well, again, I think this is not the expected answer, as the question is not about Wiktionary but about the user group. So, in my opinion, "knowledge equity" in our group means to translate guidelines and Help pages from one Wiktionary to the other to give material for new communities to create their owns easily. Also, facilitate access to knowledge about Wiktionary for people out of our community is one of the goal of the group, with posters (creation and translation), conferences, and tracking of publications about Wiktionaries. I don't call this activities knowledge equity, but I assume they may fall under this umbrella. Noé (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this feedback. To my mind, Parité des genres is a project which does pertain to gender gap, just as writing more women biographies on Wikipedia pertains to gender gap. Sure it won't solve the whole gender gap per se, but I do believe that it can contribute to attract more contributor of any gender.
Regarding your proposal of facilitating access, I don't know in which measure it might fall into the equity umbrella. Sure people have to know that the project exist in order to consult it, but it's not what I would categorize as an equity or even an access problem. Your proposals are important and should be conducted, but I would call them promotional and communication activities, regardless of the equity of our movement. To me, equity pertain more to equal right of accessing, using, modifying, and publishing the knowledge banks that we are building. --Psychoslave (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What kind of conditions do you need to realize these activities?[edit]

Well, first of all we should achieve a consensus within our group. To do that, and more, I think that making a dedicated international "Wikitionary Conference". Thus said, I'll already be busy with the organization of the Wikisource Conference this year, so should it happen this year I couldn't manage to be a leading force here.

But there are also plenty of room for doing coordination online. I plan to advance on the Wikiversity research work I started regarding Wiktionarists needs during 2018[1]. Probably moving it to the English version would be more useful for international collaboration. Having the translation tools installed on both the English and French Mediawiki instances would be fine if this is not already the case. Also, as suggested by some contributors, I will probably use UML, so having PlantUML extension installed would be great.

[1] https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Recueil_lexicologique_%C3%A0_l%E2%80%99usage_des_Wiktionnaires [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PlantUML

Psychoslave (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you can imagine to share or talk about during the Wikimedia Conference?[edit]

Right now, the TWUG have no partnerships but there is some plans to build some in 2018. I will start a conversation on this matter later this quarter. Noé (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you would like to learn about during the Wikimedia Conference?[edit]

What is your wish or hope regarding *Partnerships* within and beyond the Wikimedia movement based on the Strategic Direction?[edit]

WikiIndaba 2018[edit]

Dear […]

The third WikiIndaba Conference will be held in Tunis from 16 to 18 March 2018. It is the regional conference for Africans both within and in the diaspora. I think it could be a really good place to speak about the Wiktionary project and of the TWUG. Is anyone interested to go there? The deadline for the submission is January 15th, 2018. Pamputt (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Why not? I would be interested in presenting Wiktionary. Someone else interested? Perhaps think about a topic oriented to languages in Africa? Fee free to contact me to discuss about. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I would love to attend. Unfortunately I think it would be beyond my means. Rich Farmbrough 23:30 6 January 2018 (GMT).
Ok, still one week before the deadline. I do not know yet if I could attend to this conference but Benoît Prieur, if you are ready to go over there, I think I can help you to write an abstract for a lecture (and will see later whether I can travel). It is specified that a lecture is about 25-minute long (but could be 55-minute long for few lectures). There is also the possibility to supervise a workshop of about 1 hour. So I guess that a lecture of 25 minutes and a workshop might be a good proposal. Pamputt (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we also propose to supervise a workshop about Lingua Libre. Pamputt (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Two contributions have been submitted so far: a lecture about the Wiktionary and two workshops, one on the Wiktionary and the other about Lingua libre. Feel free to edit the proposals. Pamputt (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Presentation for Wiki Indaba 2018.

Hi, Benoît Prieur and I will be at Tunis from 16 to 18 March to attend at WikiIndaba conference 2018. We will go there to present the Wiktionary (especially the French version) and hope to incite some people (everybody?) to contribute at the Wiktionary in languages from Africa that are currently underrepresented on Wiktionaries (Arabic, Berber, Fula, ...). A conference and a workshop have been accepted. The goal of the presentation is to try to show the interest of the Wiktionary (mainly French one) for the development and the visilibility of languages spoken in Africa.

I have posted a first version of the presentation. Don't hesitate to give me your feedback by Thursday so that I can take it into account. The form is surely to improve (this is not something I am good). Other information, we have 20-25 minutes for the presentation so we cannot talk about everything. I can provide the odp file if needed. Pamputt (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you for this announce. --Psychoslave (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCon 2018 Berlin[edit]

Hi,

The deadline is the 15th of January. I remember some of them were interested in attending that conference (in representation of the Wikt user group). I guess the staff of the conference whish a lot to have someone from our group in Berlin in April.

If there is nobody to go I can think to be the one but it was not in my plans initially (I would prefer someone else for many reasons).

Regards,

--Benoît Prieur (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

--Benoît Prieur (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, I will not be attending. I you can go, that would be great ! GastelEtzwane (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I am already going with another hat. Amqui (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Same, I'll be there for the Wikisource Community User Group. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm still interested to go at this event, and will be available. Please let me know if there is any more formality that would be required to do so. Of course that should be conditioned by consensus in the group. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok for me. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC) => You have to follow the registration process [1] before the 15/01. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Benoît Prieur: for the hint, I did followed it yesterday. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Benoît Prieur: I'm no longer part of any WMF project community. Thanks anyway for the invitation. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: January 2018[edit]

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 15 / January 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Share your feedback in this global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Dear Wikimedia Affiliates,
My name is María Cruz and I work for the Wikimedia Foundation on the Learning and Evaluation team. In one week or so, the Foundation is starting a global survey to learn about the experiences and feedback of Wikimedians. I am writing here, because I wanted to share with you a bit more about the project.
The survey is called "Wikimedia Communities and Contributors" and is conducted annually. We will send the survey to editors across all the Wikimedia projects, as well as Wikimedia affiliates and volunteer developers. This survey is going to be our way of making sure that we can hear feedback from a significant number of users from across the projects. This research supports editors and Wikipedia’s mission. This is our second annual CE Insights survey, and we look forward to improving it every year.
We will be contacting 2 people from each affiliate, based on the primary contact information that we have. Each affiliate will receive an additional third link which they can distribute to any leader in their chapter or user group.
Go to the project page to see the results of last year’s survey, and to see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support communities. You can sign up to be notified about the results of the survey, or to learn how you can help with planning the survey next year.
If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to send them to Edward Galvez's talk page on Meta-Wiki or email him directly at surveys@wikimedia · org in any language. You can learn more about this project and read about frequently asked questions. You can also share your feedback on Meta-Wiki.

Thank you for your time supporting this project!
María Cruz


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping/twug[edit]

Hello, I just discover that Template:Ping/twug has been deleted one month ago. I think the group should have been warned about this deletion proposal. So, we have no way anymore to ping all the TWUG affiliate. What do you think of that? Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Xaosflux: and @Pamputt:. This is indeed problematic. Could we have information about why it was deleted? If this is not a simple error, then what should we do to have a equivalent way to notify our group without going into a creation/deletion conflict? Please notify me if you provide any reply to this section. Cheers --Psychoslave (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Psychoslave:, the reasons are given in the link in my first message. Pamputt (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
See Special:PermaLink/17957293#Template:Ping/twug for the RFD. — xaosflux Talk 12:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Xaosflux:, see the request for undeletion. --Psychoslave (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ESEAP Conference 2018[edit]

I copy here a message posted by Tofeiku on my Wiktionary talk page. Pamputt (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour Pamputt! I joined the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group and I just want to let you know that I attended the ESEAP Conference 2018 in Bali, Indonesia as a participant. --Tofeiku (discussion) 9 mai 2018 à 08:10 (UTC)
@Pamputt: I joined the conference in the last minute since there was a lack of representation from my country and I was invited to join this. I did mention about Wiktionary and TWUG with some of the participants there. --Tofeiku (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for attending to this meeting. If you want to write a small (or big) report of what you did and discuss durint the meeting about Wiktionary, this would be really interesting. Pamputt (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: June 2018[edit]

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 16 / June 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Communication and progress[edit]

Hi,

Our user group is not very active and I am not so sure of its necessity. For me, it is interesting to have in some way a Liaison inbetween wiktionaries. We share a common goal but each project is unique, and more heteroclit as wikipedian communities. I don't know what can help more to tied our community and to share ideas, good practices and tools. So, if you have any idea, feel free to share them here! -- Noé (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sharing ideas as an external observer.
Share ideas is a first step. Actualités du Wiktionaire exist as a liaising document. Have you considered to have an internationalized version, where people can share best practices?
Is anyone interested by working about how to ease newcomers first steps, or how to unify most used templates so that a new Wiktionary will have a eased start?
Have you considered to have a meetup, like Wikisource has done?
Trizek from FR 13:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Salut Trizek,
J'ai complètement oublié de te répondre. Et puis, j'ai souvent observé que de répondre à une personne limitait le nombre de réponses ensuite. Bref, j'étais un peu déçu de ne pas t'avoir croisé à la Wikiconvention francophone le weekend dernier !
Alors, une version internationalisé des Actualités, c'est pas évident. Le constat sur la wikipresse que j'ai proposé à la Wikiconvention était déjà pas enthousiaste, et j'ai l'impression que les anglophones (la communauté la plus nombreuse) s'en fiche un peu de présenter au monde ou aux collègues ce qu'ils font. J'aurai envie qu'il y ai davantage d'échange sur les bonnes idées ou bonnes réflexions que l'on a développé, mais pour l'instant, ça ne prend pas.
Faciliter l'accueil des nouvelles personnes, c'est un sujet qui n'intéresse pas grand monde et j'ai l'impression que les motivations sont très diverses d'une personne à l'autre. Et puis, pour moi, la première étape reste de faire connaitre les contenus du Wiktionnaire pour que les gens le consultent. Ils viendront à y contribuer éventuellement dans un second temps, mais ce n'est pas la priorité. La majeure partie des gens ignorent complètement que les définitions qu'ils trouvent ne sont pas sur Wikipédia mais sur un autre projet, qui contient aussi des tableaux de conjugaison des verbes, des traductions, des milliers de citations, etc. Mais on travaille aussi sur l'amélioration de l'accueil. J'ai commencé à écrire des visites guidées et une personne est motivée pour faire des vidéos afin de lancer un MOOC pour la version francophone. Alors après, sur la facilitation de création d'un nouveau wiktionnaire, pfiou, on est loin d'avoir les forces nécessaires pour réussir à aider à ça. Chaque langue a ses traditions et façons de faire pour décrire les langues et nous ne pouvons pas être neutres et donc pas de bons conseils pour aider des gens à le faire sur une langue que nous ne connaissons pas. Le kit "votre Wiktionnaire en un mois" est loin d'être facile à créer, et ce n'est pas une priorité alors que les Wiktionnaire des langues les plus parlées dans le monde sont encore à l'état d'ébauche (l'espagnol par exemple).
Pour la proposition de rencontre, c'est en discussion, mais si on fait quelque chose, ça ne sera certainement pas une convention, mais plutôt un weekend à la montagne avec une vingtaine de personnes, à la fraîche et sans communiquer dessus hors du mouvement. Et probablement seulement entre francophone dans un premier temps car la plupart des francophones ne sont pas du tout à l'aise avec l'anglais et ne souhaiteraient pas être contraint à parler cette langue. Pour l'instant, nous nous retrouvons une fois par mois à Lyon et allons tenter de nous croiser au moins une fois à Paris avant l'été prochain, rien de plus fou.
Merci encore pour tes suggestions, et désolé d'avoir un peu abandonné cet espace de discussion Noé (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Merci pour ta réponse, Noé ! Trizek from FR 11:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month[edit]

So, Wikipedia Asian Month is coming this November. So, I was thinking that we should have our own little activity as well. Maybe like we can dedicate that month to focus in improving existing Asian-language lemmas or create one in your respective Wiktionary. I always have this plan to do a "foreign exchange programme" between other Wiktionaries where we get someone from other language Wiktionary go to other Wiktionary help create lemmas of his/her language with the help of the community of the Wiktionary. Just my ideas. Cheers! --Tofeiku (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tofeiku ! Good idea. It is often quite difficult to contribute to other wiktionary as the structure largely differ and you need to understand the language quite well to be able to ask questions if needed. Doing something about Asia in November is a good idea. It could be through LexiSession operation. I think it could be interesting to describe and classify Asian languages, it's a good base but it's already quite complex with language/dialect descriptions. Maybe something about culture rather than language. I don't know. Maybe Assassas77 could have some idea? Noé (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, we could indeed focus on words that already exist in other Wiktionaries. I was planning to work on that list Otourly made : fr:wikt:Utilisateur:Otourly/IMISSU. I also enjoy working on Thesaurus, maybe Thesaurus about cooking in Asia ? (I contribute on food on Wikipedia ;) ) Assassas77 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Noé, it's not impossible to help other Wiktionaries without knowing the language. I myself edit at fr.wikt but I don't speak French. You can see my contributions there. Just need to analyse the common structure of the Wiktionary and then you good to go. --Tofeiku (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Tofeiku and Assassas77, November is almost here and we haven't fixed a topic to focus on. So, I suggest we look at the boardgame Go (围棋 , 碁, 바둑) as a culturally significant element, wildly diffused in Asia and outside. I remember Assassas being fund of food, but there is already something but almost nothing on asian games, so I think it can be interesting. If you have a better idea, I'll be please to let someone else elect the better topic! Noé (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Noé, maybe we can do traditional games in Asia too. I know a few for in Malay culture. --Tofeiku (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Traditional Asian games would be a great topic, I agree. I have a Chinese Xiangqi board, Japanese Hanafuda cards, and a Mahjong set of cards at home ;) Assassas77 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Great! WAM has started already. In conjuction to WAM, Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong holds a side contest by promoting to edit Hong Kong-related articles and win prizes from them. Maybe next year we can do something similar like that! --Tofeiku (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: November 2018[edit]

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 17 / November 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Representing in wikimedia summit[edit]

Hi, Hope all knows the registration for wikimedia summit 2019 is underway. Who is going to represent our Tremendous wiktionary user group? Do we have a procedure for that? -- Balajijagadesh (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)