[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has no policy on word articles

[Anthony]

On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at 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