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