[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony <wikimail at 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