![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
As you can see it contains both "tool"-items (buret, Short-stem Funnel, Syringe, Magnetic stir bar...) and "knowledge"-items (Chemical Symbol, Atom, Electron...). As of this writing we have 30 tools included plus 29 knowledge-items. This is not enough by far. So if you have 10 minutes time spare it would be great if you wrote text for one or the other and sent it to me. These items can even include a picture, so if you have a picture which for any of the items I would also like to include that.
This page contains the items currently in the glossary: Glossary Overview
Anonymous
June 21 2005, 04:18:42 UTC 6 years ago
Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
Is this legal, allowable and is this perhaps a better option than redoing this work yourself.You could write a script that downloads all definitions with a script nigthly into SVN and improve another open project.
Just a suggestion. I won't wan't people do this work twice.
Jerven Bolleman
June 21 2005, 05:01:46 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
That is not as easy as you think. Two issues:1. The GNU-FDL only allows this if I quite the full GNU-FLD in the glossary and have a link the article *and* the names of *all* contributors to that article in every single glossary-item. This make it completly unusable. I am a wikipedia-contributor myself, wrote over 100 articles. I cannot even use my own writings
2. The language-problem. I would need to define a list of items in the glossary. But I cannot know if that article is availeble in the user's language. My XML file will be translated seperatly be the KDE-translators.
We will implement a "wikipedia-lookup" in the glossary. But the FDL make reusing the article a mess :(
June 21 2005, 05:09:32 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
To answer myself:Most wikipedia-mirrors only have a backlink and the wikipedia-organization/whatever is fine with that right now.
But the fdl cleary states that you need to mention both the fdl and the contributors. I will not go the easy way in the hope that I will "get away" with it. I (or Kalzium) will either be fdl-compliant or not use wikipedia.
I would love to use wikipedias content, but more than a link to the wikipedia is not possible.
Anonymous
June 21 2005, 13:50:03 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
To bad, I hate to see work redone!Thanks for replying!
Jerven Bolleman
Anonymous
June 21 2005, 10:49:42 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
As long as you only take the original texts which were entirely written by you you can of course use your own writings.June 21 2005, 13:52:08 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
Yes, but still I had to name the author (myself), link to the wikipedia and print the GnuFDL.Anonymous
June 22 2005, 00:46:39 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why don't you use wikipedia definitions?
Actually, no you don't. If you are careful to only include text that you wrote, you are free to relicense it however you like. It's your text, after all.Jason