🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May31.025805.24100@sq.sq.com> lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) writes:
 ram@lynx.Berkeley.EDU (m.v.s. ramanath) writes:
 >There seems to be a serious need for a public domain dictionary.
 
 I've been thinking about exactly this issue for some time... and had even
 got an article written (but not typed) along the same lines in the last
 few days!
 
 
 Of course, quality control and checks for regional variations are very
 important.  Dictionary definitions are extraordinarily hard to write well.
 Although perhaps we could do a plausible job, I doubt that Chambers or
 Oxford or Webster need worry... :-)
  
 
 >I had half-planned the following:
 >* for each person writing definitions, there would be at least two people
 >reading definitions with the ability to comment on them

- - This sounds good to me. It might even be a good idea make a newsgroup
and let the author post their definition and let anyone who wishes
reply do so. The author can then after a suitable period revise their
definition. I think it would be nice to allow accompanying articles
(kind of like encyclopedia entries). For those who are ambitious.

 > * a writer is sent n randomly-chosen words (for example, 30 words
 > taken from
   > random usenet articles and other sources, subject to other checking)
   > The software would keep a list of which words were sent to whom, of
   > course; that's easy

 * when the writer returns some or all of the words, the software sends
 the
   same number as were returned, crosses the received words off the
   list, and re-sends the un-returned ones.

- - I can understand the reasons for issuing words randomly but I would
enjoy the project much more if I could pick some of the words I were to
write entries for. Maybe have a policy that for every assigned word you
write an entry for, you can write one of your own choosing. This would
make the "word check out" process software more complicated but worth
it in my opinion. This would also probably increase the quality of the
dictionary.

 > * a writer can work at any rate, and can "refuse" to do some or all of
 > the words.

 > * the words received are put on the list to be sent out to readers to
 > check
 > for typos, local variations (e.g. momentarily means different things
 > to different people)..



 >The same sort of thing for words received from reader-people.
 >I'm even prepared to work on such software (as well as type words...)

- - Me too...

 >Much of the challenge is to automate enough that no one person has to
 >see 500 words a day, as that would be (to say the least) a full-time
 >job.

 >For fun, by the way, I have some dictionary entries already, but they
 >are mostly from seventeenth century dictionaries :-)

- - I'm one of those people who love reading obscure dictionary entries
and other interesting lexicon. I think this could be a good piece of
reading material as well as a good desk reference. I would love to have
your 17th century entries just as much as something more than something
more run of the mill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    mike hoegeman, 
    mh@awds.imsd.contel.com