Wikithesaurus
| Wikithesaurus | |
|---|---|
| Status of the proposal | |
| Status | under discussion |
| Details of the proposal | |
| Project description | Tezaurus that categorize different topics that can be found on Wikipedia, on English Wikipedia it's translated as Thesaurus (information retrieval), the structure is similar to a dictionary but with different information and links that act as categories. |
| Is it a multilingual wiki? | Multilingual |
| Potential number of languages | Manu langauges |
| Technical requirements | |
| New features to require | No |
| Development wiki | No |
| Additional project settings | no files, no images |
The idea is to have a dedicated Thesaurus, wikidictionary is not actually Thesurs like Proposals for new projects suggest (By Thesaurs I mean Polish definition of the word Tezaurus that in English Wikipedia is Thesaurus (information retrieval)). Wikidictionary It's a dictionary and you can't add the format of a Thesaurus with all required information.
The format of the articles needs to look like this:
- Definition
- Synonyms
- Antonims
- Hiperonims
Proposed by
[edit ]This is the idea of a few Polish Professors of Computer Science: The one I know of is: Cezary Orlowski (link to Google Scholar)
Alternative names
[edit ]- WikiTezaurus
- The project can be named differently to better fit the definition of Polish Tezaurus
Related projects/proposals
[edit ]Domain names
[edit ]- wikitezaurus.org (I'm not sure about using Polish name, but wikithesaurus.org is taken)
Mailing list links
[edit ]Demos
[edit ]People interested
[edit ]Rationale
[edit ]I was told that Polish Professors of Computer Science wanted a dedicated thesaurus for their field (Computer Science) that would be more precise in explaining different topics than Wikipedia which would have better a categories. Something they could use as a reference when doing lectures. But to make it work like they want it needs to be a sister project of Wikipedia. It would be no use if you could not have a visible reference from every article on WIkipedia to this Tezaurs. Wikipedia or Wikidictionary is not exactly what they want to have. Making it a general Thesaurus, that categorizes different things may be worth adding as a sister project.
The idea was to have topics related to computer science, but it may be too niche for the Wikimedia sister project.
I'm adding this for discussion of the community. The only thing I can do for those professors.
Comments
[edit ]- Oppose Oppose Wiktionary already has synonyms, hypernyms, and other things. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose Oppose Significantly covered by Wiktionary. Northern Moonlight (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose Oppose There is indeed two different objects: linguistic/lexicographic thesaurus (d:Q179797) information retrieval thesaurus (d:Q17152639). Both have a long editorial history, in separated domains. The first one is a type of reference book for writers giving list of words associated to a concept, the most famous one being Roget's Thesaurus . The second one came from librarians and is made to structure documents by providing high-level stable references and low-level equivalent and derivative, the most famous one being Universal Decimal Classification. The first one is rebuild in some editions of Wiktionary, and is list of internal links to the dictionary entries. The second one could be a separated project, in Wiktionaries or not, but I consider it is not aligned with Wikimedia Foundation mission. This is not a collection of knowledge but a standardized stable list, published once and not to be updated or improved. It is rather a mission for ISO or W3C. Old thesauri may be integrated in Wikisource, as a source of knowledge for terminologists to create new thesaurus, but I do not think it is something for a crowd to build Noé (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Strong oppose Already is widely covered by Wiktionary QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 06:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose Oppose Already covered by Wiktionary, no real reason to split. Benpiano800 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]