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

[Fred Bauder]

> While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally,
> or
> some cases not literally enough, the point of "not a dictionary" to me in
> our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we
> didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the
> most
> part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose
> dictionary
> entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and
> Wiktionary. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put
> behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just "a word" then
> it
> might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard.
>
> -Steph
>

Extensive information on the development of a concept is inappropriate in
a dictionary. For example the word "robot".

Fred Bauder