OmegaWiki decisions on its usage
OmegaWiki is a project that will try to go on where all the individual wiktionaries stopped. As the different wiktionaries do have different conventions, it cannot be assumed that the conventions of one wiktionary should apply in the OmegaWiki and, as the OmegaWiki sets out to achieve things technically not possible in the wiktionaries it will ask for specific conventions to make this possible.
As one of the key tables in OmegaWiki is the spelling there will be no redirects from one spelling to another spelling.
When an URL is used to link to UW, there will be two ways to link: with filter information and without. When a word is looked up in the database, the presentation is dependent on options in the user preferences. Consequently to ensure persistence of what is shown, the filter used needs to be present in the resulting URL. When the filter information is at the very end, the filter info can be removed and a new load would result in a new page using the filter specified by the user.
This way there is persistency of information. Now, it would be best to indicate that a page is according to the UI options or not. A warning indicating this would be helpful.
Only correct spelling
There will be no room for words that are spelled incorrectly. Either a spelling is accepted as correct in a certain setting/environment or it is wrong. When wrong spellings are added, any words and meanings with this word will be removed. An entry may be entered in the Misspelling table where suggestions to the correct spelling may be found.
When different orthographies are acceptable, it is important to indicate the orthographies that accept a given spelling as correct. In essence all the recognised orthographies are equal. When a word is known to be good but the specific orthography is not indicated, we can choose to indicate them as unidentified orthography or we can just indicate them as a word in that language. When we tag a word as unidentified, marking them as just a word in that language would mean that it is acceptable in all the orthographies.
NB a recognised orhtography is a orthography that can be recognised as a somehow consistent way of spelling.
OmegaWiki is not intended to help create new artificial languages. Once artificial languages have verifiably established themselves, there will be room for them in the OmegaWiki.
Dialects are appreciated. They need to be properly identified as such so that they are not mistaken for words in the main language.
Famous people are of interest to the OmegaWiki. シルヴィオ・ベルルスコーニ for instance is content that makes an article on Silvio Berlusconi relevant. Without added content a name is not acceptable; a pronunciation or a different way of writing makes the grade.
Curses and swearwords
We will have all profanities in the OmegaWiki; however, the description has to be precise and the etymology should explain what the word comes from. The reason for having this content is because many people who do not know a language are often cussed and it is for them to know what is said about them, to them. It is also to explain the word to people who speak a language as they often do not realise what they actually say.
Validation of content
It is the express intention to have authorative content within the OmegaWiki. This means that there will be content that is validated/provided by an Authority. When we include content of a given resource like GEMET, the EU or the Roman Catholic church, it is important to know that a meaning presented as the definition of that authority represents the authority.
It does not mean that it will be impossible to add to the content, but it means that it will explicitly have a different status from the authorised content. The relation between a Collection and a User can only be created by an admin.
One other type of validation is the one where spelling is decided and validated by an Authority. When a spelling or a word exists outside the validated content, it is by implication suspect of being wrong.
As we want to use the OmegaWiki for the use of translators in CAT (Computer Aided Translation) tools, there is a need to improve the quality of the UW by weighing the value of information. I am considering to include an option where up to three people can confirm that something is correct. Basically they stake their reputation as much as when they insert information. Confirming explicitly wrong information on a larger scale may lead to blocking and the removal of other confirmations.