2020-10-28: Using existing definitions

[klbarnes20]

I was wondering if there is any precedent on using existing definitions and citing where they come from or if all definitions must be completely new and written based on your own knowledge.

[zkamvar]

I actually had the same question and was hesitant to add Korean translations because I was unsure of how to credit the source.

@carpentries/glosario-editors, any thoughts?

[elletjies]

My immediate thought would be to cite existing definitions in a numbered style (i.e like Wikipedia). Not sure how 'do-able' it is in Github and particularly the repo as it is now.

[gvwilson]

We could easily add a sources key with links and names. Should this be at the entry level or at the language level, i.e., would it be:

- slug: despondency
  sources:
  - name: "Wikipedia article on programming"
    url: http://something-or-other
  en:
    term: "depondency"
    def: "..."
  es:
    term: abatimiento
    def: "..."

or:

- slug: despondency
  en:
    term: "depondency"
    sources:
    - name: "Wikipedia article on programming"
      url: http://something-or-other
    def: "..."
  es:
    term: "abatimiento"
    # doesn't have external sources (yet)
    def: "..."

[zkamvar]

We could easily add a sources key with links and names. Should this be at the entry level or at the language level

I would expect that sources would need to be at the language level since I am not likely to find a Polish translation of "Working Directory" in the same place as one in Farsi.