Re: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?

\Mike wrote:

> Lately, I have started wondering why we don't
> have a set of multilingual discussion pages - one
> to deal with English, say, which could be used
> for people interested in working on English words
> in any wiktionary. Another for Swedish, and so
> on... Then we could, I believe, reduce the amount
> of *repeatedly* produced "hot air".... ;)

This sounds like a bad idea.  If you mean that we should start to 
write in Swedish on the talk pages of the English and French 
Wiktionary, what good would that be?  Who would understand those 
discussions?  But Wiktionary is already ruined, so why don't you 
go ahead.

Earlier this year, I called a meeting in Stockholm about free 
dictionaries for the Swedish language.  Ten people showed up, 
representing as many projects.  But nobody from the Swedish 
Wiktionary bothered to attend.  All who attended considered 
Wiktionary to be broken by design and not worth spending time on.  
And hey, I'm representing the Swedish chapter of the Wikimedia 
Foundation.  I have fifteen years of experience of free 
dictionaries and I was among the younger at this meeting.

So the first issue should be: Why are there no discussions? I.e. 
skip the word multilingual.  Why do the important and competent 
people, who do contribute to free dictionaries, shun Wiktionary? 
Shouldn't we just scrap Wiktionary and start from zero?  If it is 
good and worth keeping, where is the good in it?