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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> I agree with your point.  But it has nothing to do with whether or not
>> the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline is being widely ignored.
>
> In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its cultural
> history, associations, et cetera, you wrote: "Can you give an example
> of that in a traditional encyclopedia?"
>
> This appeared to imply that because entries about words are present in
> dictionaries and absent from traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia's
> deviation from this convention can only be described as the inclusion
> of dictionary entries.

It was a question.  Not even a question which I posed to you.  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.

>> > Are you suggesting that the content presented in
>> > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's
>> > "nigger" entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given
>> > revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards)
>> > to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ?
>
>> It isn't comparable.  Could it be comparable?  I don't know.
>
> Unless I've badly misunderstood Wiktionary's scope, its current rules
> wouldn't allow this.

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.

>> By the way, how does that article and the article on [[black people]]
>> not violate "Articles whose titles are different words for the same
>> thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged."
>
> 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).

An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word
"petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.

> One is about a racial classification of humans.  The other is about a
> word commonly used as an ethnic slur.

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?

>> That begs the question.  Wikipedia obviously only includes articles
>> about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are
>> justified.  But what is it that's *different* about words, which
>> justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline?
>
> As I said, the guideline addresses the inclusion (actually, the
> exclusion) of dictionary entries, *not* words.

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)?

> 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?

>> What is a reliable source for a word?  Do dictionaries count?  If so,
>> then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them?
>
> 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.