Wikipedia has no policy on articles about words. We have "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", and that's it, and that only states that we shouldn't have articles that are merely dictionary definitions.
This still leaves open the possibility of having vast numbers of articles about words which go beyond a mere dicdef, but our current vague nonsensical practice mostly puts a stop to this.
Our current practice is as follows: an article is made about a word. If the article can be rewritten into one on a topic (that is, an article on the word "shoe" becomes an article on the subject of shoes), we rewrite it, and it's no longer an article on a word.
If the article cannot be rewritten into an article on the topic the word represents, and if the article is SHORT, we transwiki to wiktionary and delete it for being a dicdef or redirect somewhere. However, if the article is LONG, and well written and wikified, we generally keep it as being "more than just a dicdef", and if there are no sources we hope some are eventually found.
This is a bizarre and ridiculous and totally unintentional way of handling articles on words, but it is exactly what we do.
Imagine if this were our policy or practice on astronomy articles. "If at all possible, rewrite to a non-astronomical topic. If none exists under this title, and if the astronomy article is short, redirect to a non-astronomical article or delete. If rewriting is not possible, but the article is long and well-written, only then do we keep it".
Obviously we do want some articles about words, though. We have "Thou", which is a featured article, we have "Truthiness", and many other well sourced and well written articles. We don't want to delete all of these, so we must want some articles on words.
But which ones? There are probably tens of thousands of english words which have been written about by etymologists, meaning we have sourced content on them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to be global in perspective, and has articles on people, places, and things from non-english speaking countries, so why would we not have articles on non-english words?
But this could end up with us having hundreds of thousands of articles on foreign words, do we want that?
One way or another, some sort of policy would be better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
There is nothing wrong with an etymology section in an article if the word has a notable etymology. There aren't many words that describe a non-notable topic yet have a notable etymology. The few exceptions can (and often do) have articles. I don't think a problem exists with our handling of etymologies.
On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing wrong with an etymology section in an article if the word has a notable etymology. There aren't many words that describe a non-notable topic yet have a notable etymology. The few exceptions can (and often do) have articles. I don't think a problem exists with our handling of etymologies.
I don't think "notability" has anything to do with it. Is "argue" a non-notable word? What about "of" or "notable" or "many" or "describe"?
The point is, encyclopedias are supposed to be about concepts. Dictionaries are supposed to be about words.
Anthony
I don't think "notability" has anything to do with it. Is "argue" a non-notable word? What about "of" or "notable" or "many" or "describe"?
The point is, encyclopedias are supposed to be about concepts. Dictionaries are supposed to be about words.
It's the notability of the word as a concept that is the issue. Generally a word is only important because of the concept it represents. Occasionally, it is important in its own right. I think "thou" is a good example of a notable word, I'm not entirely sure, though - I fear its notability stems (partially) from the fact that it is no longer used, which isn't really a good measure of notability, it's more a measure of interest. Should we be writing articles about words simply because they are interesting? Maybe, maybe not...
A dictionary defines words, and sometimes gives their etymologies. It doesn't usually discuss the significance of the word in the culture of the people using it, for example. That is more suited to an encyclopedia. For example, the fact that a group of people use the same word to refer to two seemingly distinct concepts is something that would simply result in two sections to the definition in a dictionary, it could spawn several paragraphs of discussion in an encyclopedia.
On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think "notability" has anything to do with it. Is "argue" a non-notable word? What about "of" or "notable" or "many" or "describe"?
The point is, encyclopedias are supposed to be about concepts. Dictionaries are supposed to be about words.
It's the notability of the word as a concept that is the issue. Generally a word is only important because of the concept it represents. Occasionally, it is important in its own right. I think "thou" is a good example of a notable word, I'm not entirely sure, though - I fear its notability stems (partially) from the fact that it is no longer used, which isn't really a good measure of notability, it's more a measure of interest. Should we be writing articles about words simply because they are interesting? Maybe, maybe not...
I'm not sure how to respond to this other than to say that I disagree. I could point out that none of the other encyclopedias that I checked have "thou" in them, but you'd just point out (rightfully so) that Wikipedia is broader than those other encyclopedias.
But, on the other hand, I checked an awful lot of cases, and I couldn't find any Britannica articles on words. Try looking up adjectives or verbs in a mainstream encyclopedia some time. You'll almost surely not find any. Probably won't find any pronouns either (like "thou").
A dictionary defines words, and sometimes gives their etymologies. It doesn't usually discuss the significance of the word in the culture of the people using it, for example. That is more suited to an encyclopedia.
I'm certain I've seen dictionaries that have gone into the significance of a word in culture. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen an encyclopedia other than Wikipedia which does this.
For example, the fact that a group of people use the same word to refer to two seemingly distinct concepts is something that would simply result in two sections to the definition in a dictionary, it could spawn several paragraphs of discussion in an encyclopedia.
Can you point me to any printed encyclopedias that do this? I have seen usage sections in dictionaries which do.
Anthony
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think "notability" has anything to do with it. Is "argue" a non-notable word? What about "of" or "notable" or "many" or "describe"?
The point is, encyclopedias are supposed to be about concepts. Dictionaries are supposed to be about words.
It's the notability of the word as a concept that is the issue. Generally a word is only important because of the concept it represents. Occasionally, it is important in its own right. I think "thou" is a good example of a notable word, I'm not entirely sure, though - I fear its notability stems (partially) from the fact that it is no longer used, which isn't really a good measure of notability, it's more a measure of interest. Should we be writing articles about words simply because they are interesting? Maybe, maybe not...
I don't think that notability is the right test here; notability has become an overused concept in Wikipedia. The encyclopedic interest remains in the concept behind the word, while the dictionary interest has to do with the word itself. Only after that has been decided should the dictionary and encyclopedia look at notability, because these will be based on different criteria. Where there are synonms the encyclopedia has no need to repeat the same article for each of these words; it must choose which best carries the concept. That's not so much a notability issue. A dictionary, however, must include separate articles for the synonyms, and the notability issue is more likely to arise when dealing with obscure spelling variants or neologisms. It is up to the dictionary to distinguish between the shades of meaning that differentiate the synonyms.
I think that "thou" is validly included in the encyclopedia, but there would be no need to include separate articles on its inflected forms, "thee", "thy", or "thine". It remains important in the linguistic development of the English language, and the evolution of the second person singular in the language.
BTW the use of the second person singular has not completely disappeared. It's most familiar modern English use is in the Lord's Prayer. It continues to be found in other religious or poetic circumstances, and in various dialects.
A dictionary defines words, and sometimes gives their etymologies.
Not just sometimes; a good dictionary should include the etymology as a part of the history which defines the word.
It doesn't usually discuss the significance of the word in the culture of the people using it, for example. That is more suited to an encyclopedia. For example, the fact that a group of people use the same word to refer to two seemingly distinct concepts is something that would simply result in two sections to the definition in a dictionary, it could spawn several paragraphs of discussion in an encyclopedia.
A dictionary is better equipped to deal with the distinctions between American and British usage An encyclopedia, when explaining the underlying concept, would do better to choose a word which avoids such ambiguities.
Ec
A dictionary defines words, and sometimes gives their etymologies.
Not just sometimes; a good dictionary should include the etymology as a part of the history which defines the word.
Pocket dictionaries often skip the etymology, or perhaps give an extremely abridged version. Any large dictionary should give full etymologies, certainly.
A dictionary is better equipped to deal with the distinctions between American and British usage An encyclopedia, when explaining the underlying concept, would do better to choose a word which avoids such ambiguities.
I wasn't really thinking about different dialects, I was thinking about the same word being used for two concepts by one group of people. (I can't think of any non-fictional examples, though...)
On 3/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that "thou" is validly included in the encyclopedia, but there would be no need to include separate articles on its inflected forms, "thee", "thy", or "thine". It remains important in the linguistic development of the English language, and the evolution of the second person singular in the language.
Maybe we're just talking about title, then. I would think that the evolution of the second person singular in the language would be better off in an article titled [[second person singular pronoun]] than one titled [[thou]].
Anthony
--- Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing wrong with an etymology section in an article if the word has a notable etymology. There aren't many words that describe a non-notable topic yet have a notable etymology. The few exceptions can (and often do) have articles. I don't think a problem exists with our handling of etymologies.
One major problem with what you've said above: Wikipedia has only one article on a topic, no matter how many synonyms there are for the major word we use to entitle the article.
Synonyms for stupid: brainless, dense, doltish, dopey, dorky, dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless, oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thick, thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded, witless. Related terms: feebleminded, retarded, simpleminded; foolish, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic.
These terms can't all have their own articles to contain their etymologies, they would mostly redirect to "Stupidity" on wikipedia if anyone bothered to make redirects for them all. If we determine that the etymologies are notable, where do they go? Clearly none of them would belong in the "Stupidity" article.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
One major problem with what you've said above: Wikipedia has only one article on a topic, no matter how many synonyms there are for the major word we use to entitle the article.
Synonyms for stupid: brainless, dense, doltish, dopey, dorky, dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless, oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thick, thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded, witless. Related terms: feebleminded, retarded, simpleminded; foolish, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic.
These terms can't all have their own articles to contain their etymologies, they would mostly redirect to "Stupidity" on wikipedia if anyone bothered to make redirects for them all. If we determine that the etymologies are notable, where do they go? Clearly none of them would belong in the "Stupidity" article.
If the word it notable, then it can have its own article. "Moron" and "idiot" both have their own articles, for example, despite their current meaning being exactly the same as "stupid".
On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If the word it notable, then it can have its own article. "Moron" and "idiot" both have their own articles, for example, despite their current meaning being exactly the same as "stupid".
"Moron" and "idiot" are nouns. They can't possibly have the same meaning as "stupid", which is an adjective, because they're different parts of speech.
By the way, what makes a word notable?
Anthony
On 3/25/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Moron" and "idiot" are nouns. They can't possibly have the same meaning as "stupid", which is an adjective, because they're different parts of speech.
Ok, so they have the same meaning as "stupid person". The part of speech isn't really relevant.
So what is relevant, that Wikipedia has articles on both "moron" and "idiot"?
Personally I'd redirect them both to [[mental retardation]].
Anthony
On 3/25/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikipedia has no policy on articles about words. We have "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", and that's it, and that only states that we shouldn't have articles that are merely dictionary definitions.
This still leaves open the possibility of having vast numbers of articles about words which go beyond a mere dicdef, but our current vague nonsensical practice mostly puts a stop to this.
Our current practice is as follows: an article is made about a word. If the article can be rewritten into one on a topic (that is, an article on the word "shoe" becomes an article on the subject of shoes), we rewrite it, and it's no longer an article on a word.
If the article cannot be rewritten into an article on the topic the word represents, and if the article is SHORT, we transwiki to wiktionary and delete it for being a dicdef or redirect somewhere. However, if the article is LONG, and well written and wikified, we generally keep it as being "more than just a dicdef", and if there are no sources we hope some are eventually found.
This is a bizarre and ridiculous and totally unintentional way of handling articles on words, but it is exactly what we do.
Imagine if this were our policy or practice on astronomy articles. "If at all possible, rewrite to a non-astronomical topic. If none exists under this title, and if the astronomy article is short, redirect to a non-astronomical article or delete. If rewriting is not possible, but the article is long and well-written, only then do we keep it".
Obviously we do want some articles about words, though. We have "Thou", which is a featured article, we have "Truthiness", and many other well sourced and well written articles. We don't want to delete all of these, so we must want some articles on words.
But which ones? There are probably tens of thousands of english words which have been written about by etymologists, meaning we have sourced content on them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to be global in perspective, and has articles on people, places, and things from non-english speaking countries, so why would we not have articles on non-english words?
But this could end up with us having hundreds of thousands of articles on foreign words, do we want that?
One way or another, some sort of policy would be better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bobolozo,
Thank you for your question.
We have a dictionary called Wiktionary for all words. The guiding principle should be whether an encyclopedia can be written about it. An encyclopedia article can be written about shoes. It is doubtful that one could be written about shod which is the past participle of shoe.
A person looking for shoe in Wikipedia would be interested in footwear. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have a paragraph explaining the origins of the word and its meanings but the bulk of the article should have material on the origins and history of shoes, how they are made and the varieties of them.
Regarding policies on word articles, we also have a policy banning neologisms stopping people from making up words and then sitting down and writing encyclopedia articles on them.
In my view, a majority of words could have encyclopedia articles written about them but many couldn't.
Regards
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 3/24/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Obviously we do want some articles about words, though. We have "Thou", which is a featured article, we have "Truthiness", and many other well sourced and well written articles. We don't want to delete all of these, so we must want some articles on words.
Personally, I've always felt that Wikipedia shouldn't have encyclopedia articles about words. In my opinion, if an article about a word is long, it should still be transwikied to wiktionary.
That said, I think an article could be probably be made about "truthiness" which was about the concept, not the word. As for "Thou", I'd vote for it be transwikied.
One way or another, some sort of policy would be better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
I'd say "If it's a noun, transwiki and try to rewrite into a non-word article (if that fails, delete or redirect). If not, transwiki and try to create a redirect (or delete)."
Anthony
On 3/25/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
One way or another, some sort of policy would be better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
Yes, I agree with this. Our "policy" regarding "dictionary definitions" is pretty flawed. Let's have a look: [[WP:NOT]]:
-- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers. --
We're not supposed to "create an entry merely to define a term"? Sorry, but I've frequently broken this rule. Looking through my own contributions, here are some articles I obviously shouldn't have created: * [[M-ratio]] * [[Optical sine theorem]] * [[Octave species]] * [[Exposing to the right]] * [[Heaving to]] * [[Slope rating]] ...and many others. Are these really in violation of the rule?
-- 2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. --
What is [[Chess terminology]] if not a "list of such definitions"? Check out [[List of glossaries]] for more.
-- 3. Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. --
Trivially, *all* guides are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia. So what are we trying to say about "slang and idiom guides"? Perhaps we mean that [[List of slang names for poker hands]] should be deleted?
In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries, without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or "encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.
Steve
On 3/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries, without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or "encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.
Oh, it exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Interesting.
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In general, I try to pretend that this very broken
"policy" doesn't
exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable
policy that can
distinguish between dictionary entries and
encyclopaedia entries,
without using the self-referential terms
"dictionary definition" or
"encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some
purpose.
Oh, it exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Interesting.
Steve
Basically, according to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", Wikipedia articles "are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote". Wiktionary articles "are about the actual words or idioms in their title".
In other words, according to this policy, we aren't supposed to have any articles about words at all. Except, oops, we have thousands, including one featured article.
As I've said, our policies/practices on this subject are an accidental broken mess.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
In case anyone is interested, I ended up writing an essay about this, at [[Wikipedia:Articles about words]], attempting to explain in an objective and not-so-critical way what our non-policy is on articles about words.
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
On 25/03/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
In case anyone is interested, I ended up writing an essay about this, at [[Wikipedia:Articles about words]], attempting to explain in an objective and not-so-critical way what our non-policy is on articles about words.
Inclusion policy is, broadly speaking, descriptive; so a bizzare and arcane non-policy is, basically, just a somewhat confusing practical implementation of a policy... :-)
The article for [[The]] was recently deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The]].
Clearly the article is not a dictionary *definition*; but it was argued that this is a dictionary article, and that the things other than definitions that it contains still don't belong on Wikipedia.
I don't think your essay fits practice too well.
On 26/03/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
The article for [[The]] was recently deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The]].
Without any consensus being reached, from what I can see.
--- Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
The article for [[The]] was recently deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The]].
Clearly the article is not a dictionary *definition*; but it was argued that this is a dictionary article, and that the things other than definitions that it contains still don't belong on Wikipedia.
I don't think your essay fits practice too well.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I believe that this is a rare occurrence and unusual; do you have other examples of deletion of reasonable-quality articles on words?
I'm going to take this to Deletion review, as a way of trying to clarify what the hell we're doing regarding word articles. Although this surely validates my main point, that we don't know what we're doing.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather