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.
My point is that Wikipedia contains a great deal of content, handled in an encyclopedic manner, that traditional encyclopedias lack. And some of these subjects are traditionally covered, with varying degrees of similarity, in other reference works. But just as Wikipedia's inclusion of articles about television episodes doesn't make Wikipedia a TV almanac, its inclusion of articles about words doesn't make it a dictionary.
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.
Of course, Wiktionary's scope is tied to that of a traditional dictionary to no greater extent than Wikipedia's is tied to that of a traditional encyclopedia. So if the Wiktionary community were to decide to permit such entries, I would reconsider my position.
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?
One is about a racial classification of humans. The other is about a word commonly used as an ethnic slur.
Because one of the unwritten exceptions to the guideline is that articles on terms which shouldn't be used in encyclopedias (without the quotation marks or italics) don't count.
Come again?
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, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.
"This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are."
Sounds like formatting to me.
The guideline explains that content suited to these formats is appropriate and inappropriate (respectively) for inclusion in Wikipedia. It isn't about reformatting dictionary definitions to make them fit.
To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideli...] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one.
Wait a second. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline?
See above.
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. So while typically reliable, it isn't contextually relevant.