Is Wiktionaries shared a common goal?

Hey, to start with a challenging question, I would ask you, early adopters of Wikimedia space, if you think all Wiktionaries work in the same direction, or if you think each project is independent with their own agenda. Open question, feel free to answer including if you never participate to any wiktionary.


@Noé, my answer is: Yes!

All Wiktionaries have some goals in common (e.g., helping people understand words), and all growing Wiktionaries have some “local” or “separate” goals.

To me, each Wiktionary lives his own life and I think that this is how most of the Wiktionary editors think (those who are not affiliate to the TWUG)
Yet, I would like to see a common (or at least majority) view for some topic that concern all Wiktionaries, like lexicographical data on Wikidata if we take the latest hot topic.

Let us see what we can achieve within this user group.

To be honest, I never dig this question before, so I though it could be a good starter point to some discussions here. I am often surprise by the topics in community chats (pubs, beer parlor, wikidémie, etc.). Well, in most wiktionaries, there is almost no conversation, but in the most active ones, we have very distinct priorities. For example, a couple of years ago, in French Wiktionary we had a long talk about copyright protectors, held by company to post messages in defense of their trademarks. We shared opinions and investigations and finally published a policy on this matter. I haven’t seen this topic in other wiktionaries.
Common goals could be to describe words and semantic networks but we also focus on one or some languages, sometimes underdescribed languages sometimes not. We can spend some or no energy on verbal inflexions, protolanguages, pictures, illustrative quotations, synonyms, and so on.
I feel it is often not a community choice but the will and dedication of a very close list of people. A whole project can change focus depending on just one new people that like more one aspect of the project. I am still not sure we can map every possible way to increase wiktionaries.

1 Like

I agree that there is little shared focus in the project.

Looking at the votes and discussions on the English Wiktionary, they often deal with very specific topics, bureaucracy, or technical issues, and not directly goals.

It would be good to have at least some shared ideas of what constitutes a “good/useful entry”, or what kind of work should be prioritized.

So if the individual Wiktionaries and editors have very few shared goals, I don’t see how we can easily create shared goals across projects.

@WhatamIdoing “help people understand words” is an excellent goal, we often forget that someone is actually reading/using our entries.

1 Like