It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W...
I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be determined in general, not determined piecemeal
Ian
Wikipedia should not define individual words, it's not a dictionary, but if encyclopedic articles can be written about phrases (like the recent FA Bush quote) and words (or rather the concept behind the word), there's nothing wrong with creating lists to make them easily searchable. For example, I have nothing against a list of phrases.
Mgm
On 7/31/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W...
I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be determined in general, not determined piecemeal
Ian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia should not define individual words, it's not a dictionary, but if encyclopedic articles can be written about phrases (like the recent FA Bush quote) and words (or rather the concept behind the word), there's nothing wrong with creating lists to make them easily searchable. For example, I have nothing against a list of phrases.
I agree. There is a distinction between phrases that have become a part of the language, and the kind of quotation that belongs in Wikiquote. One possible distinction is that a person with a normal ability in English will understand a quotation on a literal level when he first reads it.
Ec
On 30/07/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W...
I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be determined in general, not determined piecemeal
We have many articles which define individual words (cheese, lawnmower, carpenter, etc.), but I take the problem is to do with articles about the words themselves. One that comes to mind is the article [[fuck]], quite a good read.
Many articles which aren't specifically about the word have sections concerning etymology and semantics.
I don't think this is a problem for Wikipedia. I don't think being "encyclopaedic" is to do with what articles are about, it is to do with how they are written and how the information is presented.
After reading your email posted up to this mailing list, I have browsed the webpages provided in your email. I am suspicious about your accuracy on the comment concerning about encyclopedia having prescriptive articles.
I am writing to give you one very important point: the articles which contain definitions of words are from Wiktionary (URL: www.wiktionary.org http://www.wiktionary.org/ ), which is a branch project of the Wikimedia. Wikipedia is only providing a link to the webpage in Wiktionary. Therefore Wikipedia does not contain prescriptive articles as you accused. Although there are articles linked from the webpages containing lists in the Wikipedia itself, they are not giving definitions of the phrases. Even if it provides definitions of phrases, they are mostly in foreign languages other than English, thus it is difficult to find them from myriad of dictionaries. I cannot find a point to urge the community to delete the webpages.
Encyclopedia is a great collection of knowledge. Even if some content is not useful to particular person(s), there is no need to delete them unless they are not decent. There is not any sound reason to object knowledge accumulation.
Last but not least, please *read carefully before you make an accusation*. It is absolutely unwise to shout out complaints without sufficient proof to support them. You better look before you leap. Otherwise, you will be the one who is embarrassed if your naive, childish, and incomprehensive accusations finally light up the anger of the public.
Good luck to you if you are going to continue with such kind of behaviour.
Brian Chau
-----Original Message----- From: Guettarda [mailto:guettarda@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:11 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Lists of words
It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia
should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it
include Lists of such definitions. However, we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others.
Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied
(in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which
case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W ords
I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy
needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be
determined in general, not determined piecemeal
Ian
On 7/31/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W...
I spent quite a while trying to make sense of that guideline, particularly the contradictory "not a list of dictionary definitions" and "glossaries are ok" (I struggle to see any difference between the two).
The best I can come up with is: Wikipedia should *not* have articles describing some simple concept in some complicated language. Like "ultrak00l people say freblejobjuice to mean coca cola".
However, Wikipedia *should* have articles describing complicated concepts in simple language: In the mythical sport of fishwrestling, a bloobloop is when the wrestler takes the fish, wraps it twice around his neck and proceeds to pin its gills to the nearest railing. This concept was introduced in 1936 when....
The current "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is almost meaningless and doesn't help resolve any disputes whatsoever. I can't believe I voted to delete "List of fighting game terms" under "No lists of such definitions" when it was totally valid under "glossary pages".
Of course, can anyone actually demonstrate harm caused by dictionary definitions in Wikipedia?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I spent quite a while trying to make sense of that guideline, particularly the contradictory "not a list of dictionary definitions" and "glossaries are ok" (I struggle to see any difference between the two).
The best I can come up with is: Wikipedia should *not* have articles describing some simple concept in some complicated language. Like "ultrak00l people say freblejobjuice to mean coca cola".
However, Wikipedia *should* have articles describing complicated concepts in simple language: In the mythical sport of fishwrestling, a bloobloop is when the wrestler takes the fish, wraps it twice around his neck and proceeds to pin its gills to the nearest railing. This concept was introduced in 1936 when....
The current "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is almost meaningless and doesn't help resolve any disputes whatsoever. I can't believe I voted to delete "List of fighting game terms" under "No lists of such definitions" when it was totally valid under "glossary pages".
Of course, can anyone actually demonstrate harm caused by dictionary definitions in Wikipedia?
Steve
I tend to agree with your assessment here, I think. Though I would add that some of these lists are more appropriate in that their grouping together has some encyclopedic value when related to some other topic. This is not something a (traditional) dictionary could do. Terms specific to a subject that we have an article on especially when they are used in non-standard ways should be documented (if possible in the article in question. If the list gets too long like any other subsection it should be broken off.
I think the guideline should be more related to "would moving this to wikitionary result in some sort of loss of value". If it would not then move.
Dalf
ScottL wrote:
I tend to agree with your assessment here, I think. Though I would add that some of these lists are more appropriate in that their grouping together has some encyclopedic value when related to some other topic. This is not something a (traditional) dictionary could do. Terms specific to a subject that we have an article on especially when they are used in non-standard ways should be documented (if possible in the article in question. If the list gets too long like any other subsection it should be broken off.
I think the guideline should be more related to "would moving this to wikitionary result in some sort of loss of value". If it would not then move.
This would be a good succinct guideline.
Ec
Guettarda wrote:
It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_W...
I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be determined in general, not determined piecemeal
When Wiktionary was formed it was intended to be complementary to Wikipedia in this direction. Nevertheless, it was inevitable that there would be some degree of overlap. When I randomly view some of these lists I find that there is no one solution to determmining which belong on which project. There are some that clearly belong on Wiktionary like the [[List of idioms in the Portuguese language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_idioms_in_the_Portuguese_language]], but there are many others that are specialized glossaries that could do well in either project as long as there is proper linkage.
Perhaps the most significant factor would be whether there is something about the items on the list that would not be found in an ordinary advanced dictionary. Defining words is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia, and stubs which have a future beyond the definition should also be acceptable.
It's in the nature of policy to be prescriptive as long as people treat it as something to be enforced. A purely descriptive policy is a guideline that reflects what is actually happening, and suggests what people might do. The best approach would be to consider each of these articles one-by-one.
Ec