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
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word "computer" notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word.
Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? How did we get from "difference engine" to "computer"?
And I guess if "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is more explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy.
Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry Sanger.
Fred Bauder
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l