[Aspell-user] Re: Dictionary maintenance

[eleonora46]

Wikimedia only maintains word lists.
Spell check projects may use such word lists or word
collections for enhancement is special cases (regularly the
opposite is true), but the requirements to
set up a spell checking dic/aff pair are very different
from setting up simple word lists.

10000 words are probably enough for languages in a very early phase,
but are less than nothing for usable spell checkers on 
really used cultural languages.

Also, there is obviously no appropriate know-how on wikimedia side
to set up or maintain spell checking word lists. 
Editors are generally not too qualified, strongly biased, and they 
come and go. Overall quality of wikipedia/wikimedia is less than questionable.

Your solution does not fit to the problem.

Better solution is to cooperate with OO dictionary 
developers, who know very well both their language and
also the spell checker requirements and tools.

Regards: Eleonora

>    1. Re: Help Needed To Maintain Aspell's Many Dictionaries
>       (Lars Aronsson)
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > Aspell currently has official dictionaries for over 80 languages which
> must
> > all be kept up to date.
> 
> In my mind, the obvious reorganization of responsibilities would 
> be to hand over the maintenance of the word lists to the Wikimedia 
> Foundation, and to keep only the software-specific parts (such as 
> suffix definitions) within the Aspell project.
> 
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, was started in January 2001 and 
> it soon became obvious that dictionary-like articles (word 
> definitions) didn't fit in this encyclopedia.  In order to have 
> somewhere to direct people who still wanted to write 
> dictionary-like articles, Wiktionary, the free dictionary, was 
> started in December 2002.  The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., was 
> incorporated (in Florida) in June 2003 to handle these and other 
> similar projects.  Because Wiktionary was started as a spinoff for 
> articles that didn't fit in an encyclopedia, its structure is more 
> like the Oxford English Dictionary than any spelling dictionary.  
> Wiktionary (www.wiktionary.org) is currently available in 80 
> languages, of which 25 have more than 10,000 words (basic forms). 
> Within the same foundation, there is also a parallel project 
> called WiktionaryZ that has a somewhat different structure.
> 
> The spelling dictionaries for Aspell (and its predecessors spell 
> and ispell) don't quite fit any of these structures, but would 
> probably have to be kept separate.  As long as they are in the 
> public domain or released under "free content" licenses, I don't 
> think there would be any problems with this.
> 
> I'm not a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, but I've been 
> following these projects since their inception and could help in 
> talking to the right people, if you think this could be part of a 
> useful solution.
> 
>   Lars Aronsson (address@hidden)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

-- 
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer