On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_a_man_about_a_dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tastes_like_chicken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuddle_duddle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcareous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fag_hag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooah
Wikipedia makes a better dictionary than Wiktionary, much like it does a better job at journaling news stories than Wikinews.
I think you have something to the point that it has to do with "the more flowing style found at Wikipedia". The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements, and in Wikinews the short work cycles.