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

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> > 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.

Anthony replied:

> What about having both?  Would that be fine?

Yes, provided that each of the two words independently met the
aforementioned criteria.

> It's quite explicitly banned by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]],
> which doesn't mention anything about cultural/historical significance, isn't
> it?

The text in question (the wording of which could be improved) is
intended to refer to the concept of having two articles about the same
subject (a particular petroleum-derived liquid mixture, in this case).
 In 2005, someone actually attempted to create separate "petrol" and
"gasoline" articles for this very purpose.

Hypothetical "Petrol (word)" and "Gasoline (word)" articles would
cover separate subjects (the two words themselves).  But of course, I
don't advocate the creation of such articles.

> > The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal of material
> > that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm familiar.

> It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
> any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.

Indeed, I've acknowledged that such material is not traditionally
included in an encyclopedia.  My point is that it isn't traditionally
included in a dictionary either.  I note this to refute the assertion
that it constitutes a dictionary entry.

> > 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.

> And this differs from Wikipedia how?

Wikipedia doesn't include articles about words (as opposed to the
concepts to which they refer) unless there is consensus that the words
themselves carry extraordinary cultural/historical significance (as
corroborated by reliable sources).

> Yes, you stated a rule that articles about words (and only words?) have
> to have "cultural/historical significance",

I plainly stated that "we apply our general notability guideline
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline]."

My references to "cultural/historical significance" and "societal
impact" are informal descriptions of how a word can comply with that
guideline.

> but as far as I can tell there's nothing about that rule in
> [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].

Again, that policy pertains to the exclusion of dictionary entries.
Most articles about worlds, even if written in Wikipedia's normal
style, would essentially amount to dictionary entries (and therefore
be inappropriate).  But if a word happens to meet the criteria
outlined in our general notability guideline, we treat it as we do any
other subject.

> You seem to go back and forth on whether
> [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] is stating that articles
> should not be formatted as dictionary entries, or whether it imposes
> notability requirements of its own.

If you interpreted anything that I wrote to mean the latter, you misunderstood.

To quote an earlier reply, "I'm referring to articles formatted as
dictionary entries and articles whose subjects should not (according
to consensus) be presented in any other manner."

In other words, articles formatted as dictionary entries are
inappropriate (even if they pertain to subjects for which legitimate
encyclopedia articles could be written) and dictionary entries dressed
up as encyclopedia articles (i.e. articles containing no more than one
would find at Wikitionary, apart from formatting imitating that of
Wikipedia) are inappropriate too.

> And most of the material I think would be *more likely* to be in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.  Meaning, etymology, usage,
> derivatives.  These are all things more likely to be found in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.

Taken as a whole, these articles fall somewhere between the the types
of content found in conventional dictionaries and encyclopedias.  I
don't assert that it inherently makes more sense to include them in
Wikipedia than it does to include them in Wiktionary, and I probably
would support a proposal to permit the latter and transwiki them en
masse.

> Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
> requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
> requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
> likely be in the former, and not the latter.

For whatever reason, that isn't how things have turned out.  Perhaps
we should shift our focus toward exploring the possibility.

-- 
David Levy