Anthony wrote:
It was a question. Not even a question which I posed
to you.
This is a public discussion.
I certainly didn't mean the question as a
statement that A implies B.
I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a
comprehensive discussion of the
word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason
why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia.
Perhaps so.
> Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's
"Black people"
> article and "Nigger" article cover the same subject?
No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are
titles which are
different words for the same thing (synonyms).
The terms' contexts differ wildly.
Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?
An article about the word "gasoline" and an
article about the word
"petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.
Agreed.
So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived
liquid mixture, and
[[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it
would be fine?
No, because the primary topic for both "petrol" and "gasoline" is the
aforementioned petroleum-derived liquid mixture (so both titles should
lead directly to its article).
Conversely, the word "nigger" is known primarily as a slur applied to
black people, *not* an accepted synonym for "black people."
A "Petrol (word)" or "Gasoline (word)" article would be fine,
provided
that reliable sources and Wikipedia consensus back the assertion that
the word itself possesses cultural/historical significance warranting
an encyclopedia article. This probably isn't the case.
Of course words aren't excluded! As for
"dictionary entries" being
excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do
you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries
(usage, etymology, meaning)?
I'm referring to articles formatted as dictionary entries and articles
whose subjects should not (according to consensus) be presented in any
other manner.
> Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a
dictionary entry is
> appropriate.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry".
Are you talking about
length, or content?
The latter. The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal
of material that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm
familiar.
But again, I acknowledge that Wikitionary isn't bound by this
convention and _could_ contain such information if its scope were
expanded.
> As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists
and defines terms
> from the language in which it's written.
Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are
selective, not
comprehensive or random.
My point is that a dictionary typically lists and defines terms with
little regard for their societal impact. "Door" is included because
the object that it describes is a common, everyday thing, *not*
because of any special attributes on the part of the word itself.
--
David Levy