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

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> > My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written
> > as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional
> > encyclopedia includes such content).

Anthony replied:

> That point is not relevant, though.

Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted
below) doesn't render it irrelevant.

> > Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words.  The fact that
> > these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are
> > covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their
> > presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function.

> What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"?  Sounds
> to me like another way to describe a "dictionary".

Are you suggesting that the content presented in
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's "nigger"
entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion
in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ?

> > Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from
> > that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
> >
> > I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary
> > (including Wiktionary).

> So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an
> inclusion guideline?  I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's
> what it says, maybe I should reread it.

No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't
include dictionary entries.  This is tangentially related to
formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words
only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified.

"This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into
articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a
dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what
they are."

Unlike a dictionary, Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately list and
define words.  Only words deemed culturally/historically noteworthy
are treated as "things" in and of themselves.  No one is suggesting
that it's okay to write a Wikipedia article about any word, provided
that it's formatted as an encyclopedia article.

> > We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not
> > the primary topic.  For example, see "Man (word)".

> I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something
> more standard.  Instead I see:
>
> *troll (gay slang)
> *faggot (slang)
> *Harry (derogatory term)
> *Oorah (Marines)
> *Uh-oh (expression)

That's why I wrote "or similar."  As is true across Wikipedia in
general, there probably are some instances in which our parenthetical
disambiguation is unnecessarily specific.

> Anyway, not that big a deal.  So the next problem I have is that there
> don't seem to be any notability guidelines.  Is the word "computer"
> notable?  If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a
> common word?  There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the
> word.

To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline]
and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise.  If you
believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel
free to propose one.

-- 
David Levy