I recently contacted OneLook.com about including Wiktionary in their excellent database:
I notice you list Wikipedia as a dictionary source, but do not list it\'s lexical equivalent Wiktionary (www.wiktionary.org). Wiktionary is administered by the same foundation, Wikimedia (http://wikimediafoundation.org), as Wikipedia, but a dictionary (and soon to be thesaurus) as opposed to an encyclopedia. We are presently at about 130,000 substantive entries in over 200 language, and I believe we would be an asset to this site. I am an administrator at the project, and can be reached at my user page there (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:TheDaveRoss) or at my email listed below. I love your site and use it regularly when trying to verify contributed senses and words, and anything to make this a more valuable resource is a good thing in my opinion. Thanks,
- Dave Ross
I’ve had a chance to review this with Bob Ware, the original creator of OneLook. Both he and I agree that we should add Wiktionary to OneLook’s database. He suggests that you create an index file for English in a format similar to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_language
I’d like you to make contact with Bob directly and keep me on copy for all communications. I manage Datamuse business and Bob has been engaged as a consultant to help maintain OneLook’s database. Bob and I will communicate separately on priorities and time expenditures.
It sounds like bringing Wiktionary into the database will serve our growing audience. OneLook answered over 11 million queries in March, About 40% of our audience resides outside the U.S. One of our long term objectives is to better serve that non-U.S. audience.
Thanks for bringing Wiktionary to my attention.