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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Faith is about what you really truly believe in, not about what you are
taught to believe.