Larry Sanger, one of the founding fathers of Wikipedia, has written a large two part story on /. . In it he describes the early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia in two parts. In part two, he mentions wiktionary and I was really interested in what Larry had to say. I hoped for something profound, something new, something that would inspire me.
For me it was a letdown. Apparently Larry did not have one look at the current wiktionary. When he had typed in wiktionary.org He would have found a portal page for several wiktionaries. He would have known that it is not possible to make a comparison with the likes of Webster's and the OED because wiktionary is not like these pillars of wisdom. Wiktionary is not only about the English language. He would have found many projects in many languages. A bit like Wikipedia but different. Different because if Larry had looked into any of these projects, he would have found that all these projects have the ambition to have all words in all languages. He would have found that current wiktionary has moved far beyond what where the issues at the start.
So it is no suprise that Larry has not learned about the Ultimate Wiktionary. A new ambitious project that may integrate all Wiktionary projects and that will be the first "any to any" dictionary. His arguments against the use of a wiki in relation to dictionaries is a rehash of his POV that you need authority to do some work. If he had done some research, he could have found the soundfiles, something anyone with a "standard" pronounciation can produce. He could have found (with some difficulty) all the Papiamento words in the Dutch Wiktionary, a resource that has (as far as I can find) no equal on the Internet. He could have found that collaboration that exists between Wiktionaries resulting in things like the "Cristianesimo" list of words.
So I am disapointed. As Larry Sanger is a man respected for his contributions in the initial stage of the Wikipedia project, I would be ever so pleased if he had another look. I would really look forward to an opportunity to discuss the opportunies that I foresee in the Ultimate Wiktionary. It would be ever so cool if Larry had a serious look at the current Wiktionary because then we could compare notes on what is wrong with the current crop of Wiktionary projects. It would also make him relevant because what he wrote in slashdot is for me nothing but a blast from the past.
Thanks,
GerardM
1 comment:
Gerard,
I was perhaps harsh about Wiktionary. Indeed, I did not do very much research for that paragraph. But I was making two simple points.
First, wiki software seems inappropriate for a dictionary, while it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are many, many other ways to design collaborative software. Wiki is only among the simplest.
Second, the management and decisionmaking process of a dictionary, even more than of an encyclopedia, absolutely requires the involvement of the relevant experts, in this case fully qualified lexicographers.
Why? It's really quite simple. An encyclopedia can be less than perfectly authoritative, but still be very useful to the average reader, because it provides a place to begin research and a probably true account of its subject. But dictionaries are absolutely required to be authoritative in every entry, because no one wants to consult more than one. Defining words is very tricky business, arguably even trickier than encyclopedia entries. Unless a definition has been approved by a lexicographer, why would I want to use it, when I can just as easily use any of the many free, lexicographer-built dictionaries online?
I'd be delighted if you could answer that question and enlighten me.
Does Wikipedia have a board of directors that consists of professional linguists? If not, why not?
If Wiktionary has overcome these problems, my hat is off!
Post a Comment