[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

[Fred Bauder]

> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> Interesting.  I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
>> guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
>> dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to
>> etymology, usage, and profanity.  I'm interested in seeing what the
>> original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
>
> {{fact}}
>
> "Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be
> encyclopaedic. And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too
> strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to
> dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
>
> Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a
> word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that
> Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia.
> However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of
> *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word*
> articles.
>
> Steve

Yes, a poor policy if taken literally, but that seems to be true of all
language. Inadequate formulations like that are often ignored in practice
when there is something interesting and relevant to include. Another is
"Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.

Fred Bauder