Currently, all wiktionary projects are trying to explain words in one languages using words in either the language itself or using words in other languages.
|Status of the proposal|
|Details of the proposal|
|Project description||It would describe terms in different languages using multimedia files like images, audio video. It's functionally similar to existing Wiktionary in providing meaning of different words, but in multimedia format users can understand more intuitively|
|Is it a multilingual wiki?||yes|
|Potential number of languages||yes|
|Proposed tagline||A free pictorial dictionary, also with audio and video|
|New features to require||no|
For illiterate or barely literate users, including people who have not received sufficient education, have disability, young kids, or new foreign language learners, it might not be the best approach to explain words using other words that they might not know. Show them the concept non-verbally using multimedia might be a better approach, just like some pictorial dictionaries around.
In addition, sometimes some concepts are really difficult to explain through words, and it's better to show readers seeking to understand them using images or video or audio chips, especially for noun and verb and onomatopoeia and also some other words.
Note 1: Currently, some wiktionary articles have already been decorated with multimedia images/video/audio chips, however their functionality are mainly to help explaining the concept instead of trying to show the concept without relying on languages, and those multimedia addition are also limited to a few specific phases in a few language editions, which is bad for both expected use cases as described above, user access, and contribution. Having a separate project for these resources can centralize these efforts.
Note 2: The proposal have previously be submitted under the procedure of Request for new languages, but was being rejected out of the fact that multimedia isn't a language. Hence I am re-submitting the proposal though the proposal for new project procedure.
- Wiktionary Media
- Wiktionary Nonverbal
- Wiktionary Audiovisual
N/A. A quick search show that, Wordia, a site now ceased to exists, used to have a similar concept, but searching around reveal that most videos on the site have people explaining meaning of words verbally in a video, instead of having video or pictures or audio of the object itself.
I think this would be more-or-less redundant to lexeme entries in d:, if those simply had media associated with them. Rather than have an entirely new project, why don't we just build up that existing work? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see Wikidata, including its lexeme entries, as database collecting and linking data together, instead of a way of explaining to users what is what. Like the concept of Wikifunction and Abstract Wikipedia, for such proposal I think it is possible for media chip information be collected and linked in wikidata lexeme items and then be presented in a user-facing audiovisual dictionary site, instead of on wikidata itself which would be too complicated and involve too much redundant information for a regular user seeking a visual dictionary, and lexeme items in wikidata are also not sorted in ways that a audiovisual dictionary could be. C933103 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wiktionarys are illustrated dictionaries. They are, by their policy, allowed to have 1 image per sense of every word.
- Also, a Wiktionary:simple: exists that gives definitions in basic simple English, and it too is an illustrated Wiktionary. e.g.: simple:wikt:pigeon.
- The main problem they are all facing are there are not enough editors (en Wiktionary has only 1,700 active editors while en wikipedia has 134,000 active editors)
- I do wish that a translingual structured illustrated Wiktionary be made, using facilities of Wikifunctions and d:WD:LD. Vis M (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I think making content easier to access for illiterate people is a fantastic cause. I do think it's something that existing projects might be able to help with, rather than a new project. In fact I think it would be even more supportive of these people if existing projects committed to being inclusive.
I've recommended with another project Wikipedia Kids that Abstract Wikipedia may actually be a fantastic way of helping such people. That project aims to translate abstract ideas into natural langauge. The person behind that project suggested it to Abstract Wikipedia here. The response was "Not at this time" as it would massively expand the scope of Abstract Wikipedia. But, if such an idea is ever considered, your idea could fit in the same vein. Translating abstract concepts and words into ways that illiterate people can understand.
For now however. Is this something that wiktionary could incorporate? Definitions in non-conventional ways. How would you imagine illiterate people using the project? How would they search for the words and ideas they're hoping to understand? I would think the project would attempt to help such people find and understand these concepts, while improving their literacy skills. Supertrinko (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- One thing is, given the non-literal nature of the proposed project, it seems like a waste to only have it available on English wiktionary or some other major wiktionary, as that would mean users in other languages would not be able to contact such information, or a duplication of effort is required to import them into all different wiktionary language versions. It would also make it have to create things like, for example, a visual-based index of different words on the site in a way like regular visual dictionary. C933103 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think you've got a bit more work to do in explaining what this concept is.
- Wouldn't screen-reading technology help these people far more than trying to interpret a picture or abstract website?
- Are you then helping improve literacy by providing the words in a traditional langauge? In which case, you just have the same issue of having to split into multiple language wiki do you not?
- What's an example of how you would see a page? It's such an abstract idea that everyone thinking about this is going to have their own ideas and base their feedback on this.
- It would help to have a clearer vision of how you see someone using the site. Supertrinko (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think you've got a bit more work to do in explaining what this concept is.
- First, on how a page would look like, for example, on the page for "wave", there can be picture of waves, audio of wave along the shore, and video of wave moving on the ocean. Or on the page of "running", it can have a people of people running or an animation showing one running, so that they can get. Or on the page of "apple", it can simply have an image of an apple and a 3D model of it. So that readers can learn about what is a "wave", what is "running", what is an "apple", intuitively from those examples. This contrast how Wiktionary currently explain words, for example "wave" is explained as "A moving disturbance in the level of a body of liquid", "running" is explained as "moving or advancing at a run", and "apple" is explained as "A common, round fruit produced by the tree Malus domestica, cultivated in temperate climates", which I doubt any people without solid grasp of the language would be able to understand these definition text easily. It also explain why using screenreading to read the text of regular Wiktionary out isn't helping as much,
- Second, it will have words from different languages but the explanation are all in audio or visual context. This is similar to regular language editions of Wiktionary, like Wiktionary English, where it explain all the words in a single form (English in that case) but it contain words from every language editors willing to input. C933103 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)