On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to etymology, usage, and profanity. I'm interested in seeing what the original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
{{fact}}
"Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be encyclopaedic. And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia. However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word* articles.
Steve
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to etymology, usage, and profanity. I'm interested in seeing what the original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
{{fact}}
"Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be encyclopaedic. And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia. However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word* articles.
Steve
Yes, a poor policy if taken literally, but that seems to be true of all language. Inadequate formulations like that are often ignored in practice when there is something interesting and relevant to include. Another is "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the recipes though; not many left.
Fred Bauder
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
"Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish, and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one etymology, so there isn't that problem.
Steve
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
"Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish, and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one etymology, so there isn't that problem.
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
I think your "meh" example is perfect.
Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean? Wikipedia: why is "meh" even a word?
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. The word's Simpsons origins, the debate over whether it was a real word, its inclusion in the list of 20 words that "defined a decade" - all of this is interesting, notable, relevant, and probably out of place in a Wiktionary article. You wouldn't do it for just any word, perhaps, but this one even has a referenced claim to notability.
I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.
Steve
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
I think your "meh" example is perfect.
Good, me too.
Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean? Wikipedia: why is "meh" even a word?
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc.
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word "meh"]]?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean?
By the way, I just want to point out that Wiktionary, like most dictionaries, contains more than just word meanings. It also contains usage and etymology, which seems to me to be exactly what that Wikipedia article contains. The only difference is that Wikipedia contains it in a more free-form article, and that it is more complete.
Steve Bennett wrote:
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc.
Anthony replied:
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia.
And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word "meh"]]?
Why?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc.
Anthony replied:
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries.
As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia.
And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't.
And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word "meh"]]?
Why?
Disambiguation. I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog.
I wrote:
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
Anthony replied:
That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries.
My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content).
Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function.
As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia.
And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't.
Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary).
And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word "meh"]]?
Why?
Disambiguation. I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog.
We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)".
Otherwise, titular disambiguation (the main function of which is navigational, not informational) isn't needed. A subject's basic nature should be explained in its article's lead.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
Anthony replied:
That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries.
My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content).
That point is not relevant, though.
Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function.
What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"? Sounds to me like another way to describe a "dictionary".
As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia.
And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't.
Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary).
So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it.
And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word "meh"]]?
Why?
Disambiguation. I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog.
We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)".
I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see:
*troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression)
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.
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.
I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point is not relevant, though.
Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant.
Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function.
What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"? Sounds to me like another way to describe 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 ?
Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary).
So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it.
No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified.
"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."
Unlike a dictionary, Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately list and define words. Only words deemed culturally/historically noteworthy are treated as "things" in and of themselves. No one is suggesting that it's okay to write a Wikipedia article about any word, provided that it's formatted as an encyclopedia article.
We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)".
I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see:
*troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression)
That's why I wrote "or similar." As is true across Wikipedia in general, there probably are some instances in which our parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessarily specific.
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.
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.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point is not relevant, though.
Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant.
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.
What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"? Sounds to me like another way to describe 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.
So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it.
No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified.
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?
"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.
We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)".
I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see:
*troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression)
That's why I wrote "or similar."
I wasn't disagreeing with you.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Do dictionaries count as reliable sources?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
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.
So Wikipedia shouldn't have articles (verbose dictionary entries) about words?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Wait a second. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline?
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?
The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies. Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..." standards dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it to cover the corner cases.
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline on it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not censored" isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to decide.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Wait a second. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline?
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?
The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies. Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..." standards dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability
- they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it
to cover the corner cases.
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline on it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not censored" isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to decide.
Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.
Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.
Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.
"Not censored" is about just that, it doesn't mean we throw out other content policies, it means that we don't remove offensive material simply for the sake of it's offensiveness. Other policies that call for removal of material such as legal requirements to do so, BLP, notability, reliable sources, still apply. Good taste, and encyclopedic nature generally should still apply. The reason "not censored" even exists is to make sure that censorship doesn't trump writing an encyclopedia, not so that people can go out of their way to be offensive. As an example, an article about breast cancer may very well have pictures of breasts in a medical context. Those images are inherently encyclopedic in nature - "not censored" is meant to give us firm ground to stand on when someone cries foul over those images. or any other encyclopedic content.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
I think that's roughly the way the guidelines is interpreted by most, though with a special de facto exception for offensive terms (I think the way it works is that no one wants to write an encyclopedia article about the concept behind the offensive term, so the article becomes one about the word, and not the concept).
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.
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."
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.
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.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
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.
It was a question. Not even a question which I posed to you. I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B. I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question.
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.
Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia.
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?
No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are titles which are different words for the same thing (synonyms).
An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word "petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.
One is about a racial classification of humans. The other is about a word commonly used as an ethnic slur.
So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it would be fine?
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 words aren't excluded! As for "dictionary entries" being excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries (usage, etymology, meaning)?
Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
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.
Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not comprehensive or random.
Anthony wrote:
It was a question. Not even a question which I posed to you.
This is a public discussion.
I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B. I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia.
Perhaps so.
Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's "Black people" article and "Nigger" article cover the same subject?
No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are titles which are different words for the same thing (synonyms).
The terms' contexts differ wildly.
Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?
An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word "petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.
Agreed.
So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it would be fine?
No, because the primary topic for both "petrol" and "gasoline" is the aforementioned petroleum-derived liquid mixture (so both titles should lead directly to its article).
Conversely, the word "nigger" is known primarily as a slur applied to black people, *not* an accepted synonym for "black people."
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.
Of course words aren't excluded! As for "dictionary entries" being excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries (usage, etymology, meaning)?
I'm referring to articles formatted as dictionary entries and articles whose subjects should not (according to consensus) be presented in any other manner.
Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal of material that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm familiar.
But again, I acknowledge that Wikitionary isn't bound by this convention and _could_ contain such information if its scope were expanded.
As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from the language in which it's written.
Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not comprehensive or random.
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.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?
No, I don't.
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.
What about having both? Would that be fine? It's quite explicitly banned by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], which doesn't mention anything about cultural/historical significance, isn't it?
Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. 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.
As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from the language in which it's written.
Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not comprehensive or random.
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?
Yes, you stated a rule that articles about words (and only words?) have to have "cultural/historical significance", but as far as I can tell there's nothing about that rule in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].
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. I've mostly snipped that part of our discussion, because it was getting far too circular.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. 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.
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.
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.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. 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.
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.
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.
Well stated, and I think that clearly states the purpose of "not a dictionary". It's not anything to do with notability, it's what belongs where.
The point of our projects as a whole, is to provide information,; it is much more important to make the information easy to find so people will not miss it, even by their usual habit of relying on the google hit & not following even the most obvious of cross-references, rather than argue about which of two places to put it.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. 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.
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.
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.
Well stated, and I think that clearly states the purpose of "not a dictionary". It's not anything to do with notability, it's what belongs where.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/12/2010, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The point of our projects as a whole, is to provide information,; it is much more important to make the information easy to find so people will not miss it, even by their usual habit of relying on the google hit & not following even the most obvious of cross-references, rather than argue about which of two places to put it.
I think that ultimately this position is harmful. Information is extremely valuable, but putting things in the consistent places and generating and sticking to standards raises quality. As much as possible we want one, fairly obvious place to put each bit of information, not multiple places where they can be found, and doing that involves making clear-cut distinctions that we can explain to people.
WMF is trying to write reference works, not just collect piles of information (the internet does that). Being a reference work requires that they be capable of being referred to and classified according to some scheme that our policies outline.
It therefore helps to keep word articles separate from general concept articles in some way. It doesn't necessarily matter how you do it, provided there are standards for both. I don't think that words are concepts in the same way- or if they are, different languages have different concepts in that sense, and hence words are less general and less useful.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
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_guideli...]."
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.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received much more widely than all other wikis.
You think popularity is the cause of Wiktionary sucking? I think it's the effect.
David Levy doesn't quote like everyone else, so I've stripped the attributions from the following:
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).
That wouldn't make sense. Dictionaries don't have two entries about the same subject. They have one entry about the word petrol, and one entry about the word gasoline.
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.
I asked if it was an inclusion guideline or a formatting guideline, and you said it was an inclusion guideline.
If you're now saying it is in fact a formatting guideline, then you can ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
If you're saying that it's an inclusion guideline, and not a formatting guideline, because it states that articles which are formatted as dictionary entries should not be included...then you can ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
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.
Doesn't transwiking still suck, or have the developers finally delivered on the features which for so long were put off until "after single user login is finished"?
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.
That's fine with me. I'm not actually all that sure whether or not Wikipedians *should* ignore [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. I was just defending my statement that they do.
I wrote:
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).
Anthony replied:
That wouldn't make sense. Dictionaries don't have two entries about the same subject. They have one entry about the word petrol, and one entry about the word gasoline.
Indeed, and the text refers to the possibility of Wikipedia having separate articles for "petrol" and "gasoline," which briefly occurred in 2005. This was problematic because unlike the corresponding dictionary entries, both articles covered the same subject (the substance to which those terms refer).
The policy's editors weren't thinking of the highly unlikely hypothetical scenario in which Wikipedia articles about the words "gasoline" and/or "petrol" were written.
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.
I asked if it was an inclusion guideline or a formatting guideline, and you said it was an inclusion guideline.
Inclusion guideline != notability guideline
Most elements of "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (to which "Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria" redirects) are unrelated to notability.
If you're now saying it is in fact a formatting guideline, then you can ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
No, I'm not saying that. As previously noted, formatting issues are tangential.
If you're saying that it's an inclusion guideline, and not a formatting guideline, because it states that articles which are formatted as dictionary entries should not be included...then you can ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
That's part of what I'm saying.
Doesn't transwiking still suck, or have the developers finally delivered on the features which for so long were put off until "after single user login is finished"?
I'm unfamiliar with the situation.
I'm not actually all that sure whether or not Wikipedians *should* ignore [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. I was just defending my statement that they do.
And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the policy.
On 12/28/2010 9:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemikemuzemike@gmail.com wrote:
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received much more widely than all other wikis.
You think popularity is the cause of Wiktionary sucking? I think it's the effect.
In a sense, yes. The amount of influence and power Wikipedia yields on the rest of the Internet is amazing; we may not be aware of that as we tend to naturally look from the inside out and not from the rest of the world's POV.
And I feel that does get in the way of us trying to organize the information we have put together so far (as we humans like to do) - words and definitions in one place (the dictionary), basic descriptions of topics (the encyclopedia) in another place, locations (an atlas or gazetteer, which we still yet to find a way to incorporate a wiki structure for something like that), and so on.
I know people don't like what I say when I sometimes tell them to think of Wikipedia (or whichever wiki you are working on) sans the high search rankings, popularity, etc., and just concentrate on the content itself. Are we organizing the information in the most efficient and logical ways we can? Are we maintaining a stable and sustainable wiki in both content and community? I feel those are the questions we ultimately, as a collection of wiki communities, need to always keep in mind.
-MuZemike
On 28/12/2010, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Mostly true, but on the other hand there is no way to add extended dictionary articles in the Wikipedia in an encyclopedic way, whereas you probably could with television episodes.
it simply can't be done.
For example even if you add all notable terms from all possible languages, and relate them to the encyclopedic concepts, after you did that, you could always look up those terms in a dictionary anyway, so there's little point.
But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.
-- David Levy
Ian Woollard wrote:
But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.
Your opinion of what constitutes "encyclopedic stuff" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
On 29/12/2010, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.
Your opinion of what constitutes "encyclopedic stuff" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
I'd like to borrow your magic machine that you seem to think you have that you apparently think tells you what entire communities think some time.
Irrespective of that perhaps we should try to ensure popular buy-in to sensible decisions, as opposed to popular buy-in to popular decisions.
That is so often so very easy, but not always so very helpful.
-- David Levy
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
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
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
Extensive information on the development of a concept is inappropriate in a dictionary. For example the word "robot".
Fred Bauder
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.
What makes a word notable? Without looking in Wikipedia: Is "argh" notable? Is "ahoy" notable? Is "because" notable? Is "awesome" notable? Is "anorexic" notable? Is "shithead" notable? Is "hungry" notable? How do we decide whether or not a word is "notable"? What are the guidelines that should be used?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to etymology, usage, and profanity. I'm interested in seeing what the original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
{{fact}}
"Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be encyclopaedic.
What's very few? Hundreds? Thousands? 1%? And what's "could not be encyclopaedic"?
There are many articles about terms, phrases, slang, interjections, adjectives, verbs, etc. In most cases they could be turned into an encyclopedia article - after all you can turn just about any topic into an encyclopedia article - but they aren't encyclopedia articles, they're long, well-written, interesting, dictionary entries.
And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
That seems to be the prevalent attitude, which is exactly why I think the policy is widely ignored. If you make a dictionary entry which is more than a few paragraphs long, suddenly it's accepted as an encyclopedia article.
Maybe it's a good idea. A with news articles in wikinews, Wikipedia seems to do a better job at making dictionary entries than Wiktionary. But if that's what you want to do, at least make it explicit.
Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia. However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word* articles.
Meh.
No, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh
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.
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a "failure". But if it is, it's arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a multilingual one).
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a "failure". But if it is, it's arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a multilingual one).
If Mediawiki is keeping the Wiktionarians from succeeding, then they should fork Mediawiki. But I don't think that's the real problem. A better candidate would that the imposition of top-down structure in a wiki just doesn't work.
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received much more widely than all other wikis.
After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable portion of the Internet.
-MuZemike
On 12/28/2010 7:56 AM, Anthony wrote:
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received much more widely than all other wikis.
After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable portion of the Internet.
...Hmm.
I guess it's a good sign, if we think of the positives, that in some areas our closest credible competition for WP is another WMF project. 8-)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received much more widely than all other wikis.
After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable portion of the Internet.
...Hmm.
I guess it's a good sign, if we think of the positives, that in some areas our closest credible competition for WP is another WMF project. 8-)
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Ok, hold that thought.
How about creating, within Wikimedia, a fork which incorporates some or all of the ideas we've been discussing. For example a dictionary which does discuss the development of concepts at length.
Fred Bauder
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
How about creating, within Wikimedia, a fork which incorporates some or all of the ideas we've been discussing. For example a dictionary which does discuss the development of concepts at length.
The Wiktionarians probably wouldn't like that.
Actually, the Wikipedians probably wouldn't either.
Which is not to say it's a bad idea. But neither is world peace.
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do that now?
Carcharoth
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do that now?
Agreed.
Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties can participate.
Earlier this year, when one editor was beati^H^H^H examining this issue closely, dozens of relevant links and examples were collated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_R... and much discussion took place (in various locations). The last 2 threads on the talkpage might be helpful for interested people to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Dr... If the editors who object to articles-about-words can help fill in the Table of Evidence in that last talkpage thread, it might move this discussion forward. As it stands, the precedent, practice, and RS references, all support the inclusion of a few articles about notable words in an encyclopedia. (What a "notable word" is, is where some opinions differ, and is what WP:GNG is for. It is generally agreed that just being listed in dictionaries is insufficient for standalone notability).
WP:NAD hasn't changed much, since it was written in 2001-2003, and needs to be understood in that context (and needs to be updated, but everyone was exhausted by the last disagreement, so no progress has been made on that, yet).
One way of looking at it, is as a simple case of Quantity of Reliable&Verifiable Content (aka notability). For example: Subsection in Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Etymology Split-out comprehensive subpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29 Wiktionary's coverage: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chemistry
Other words are notable by themselves, and do not have a "parent topic". eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
In contrast, the vast majority of words only have enough content for a single sentence, or section, within the article about the topic, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Etymology some editors believe that even that should be removed, and that all etymological information should be banished from Wikipedia. This is not practical, because our articles AND our projects are generally intended to be comprehensive by themselves (to successfully standalone, eg if printed).
Relatedly, Wiktionary is /not/ an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic_dictionary If someone were to copy all the content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou it would simply be deleted.
and other much repeated points.
Hope that helps. Please help us clarify the wording of WP:NAD to make these issues clear. Quiddity (I'm still on wiki-break, but will try to follow this topic, as I'm familiar with many of the recurring questions and answers)
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties can participate.
It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties can participate.
It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself.
1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive discussions here is not very practical. The mailing lists are good for brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the "nature of Wikipedia".
2. Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this suggestion. However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.
Quiddity
* http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Anthony
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&direction=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=140153... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=195403...
This has always been the place for such (IMO, healthy) meta-discussion to occur, which what I think this is.
-MuZemike
On 12/31/2010 12:04 AM, quiddity wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quidditypandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties can participate.
It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself.
- Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive discussions here is not very practical. The mailing lists are good for brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the "nature of Wikipedia".
- Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic
reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this suggestion. However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.
Quiddity
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&direction=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=140153... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=195403...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
- Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive discussions here is not very practical.
I would think that fewer participants would make decisive discussions easier.
The mailing lists are good for brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the "nature of Wikipedia".
Sorry, I couldn't resist plagiarizing Jimmy Wales and his widely ignored principles from his user page.
- Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic
reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this suggestion.
Yes, I find wiki talk pages to be a terrible form of communication. There's no push notification, no decent threading, post-hoc censorship, a requirement to release everything you write under CC-BY-SA, etc. And the silly memes regarding Wikipedia talk pages don't even allow people to utilize the benefits of a wiki - non-signed content, modification of content, multi-person collaboration on a single paragraph.
Wikis make sense for collaboration, but not for communication. ~~~ and ~~~~ never made any sense.
However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.
In this particular case, the mountain had already come to me. I was just objecting to your suggestion that it go back.
So does that mean we can restore the article on "the"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The
So does that mean we can restore the article on "the"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The
Good example of a poor decision. If nothing else, a discussion of how Russian does without the, or a, or an but English seeming needs them would be very interesting.
The question is how we could somehow modify this rigid approach. What does it take to modify something that ingrained into policy?
Fred Bauder