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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with your point.  But it has nothing to do with whether or not
the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline is being widely ignored.

>> 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 ?

It isn't comparable.  Could it be comparable?  I don't know.

>> 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.

That begs the question.  Wikipedia obviously only includes articles
about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are
justified.  But what is it that's *different* about words, which
justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline?

> "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."

Sounds like formatting to me.

>> > 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."

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

>> 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.

Wait a second.  If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion,
isn't *it* that notability guideline?

What is a reliable source for a word?  Do dictionaries count?  If so,
then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them?


On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable
> source?

Do dictionaries count as reliable sources?



On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
<sdaugherty at gmail.com> wrote:
> For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary
> entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and
> Wiktionary.

So Wikipedia shouldn't have articles (verbose dictionary entries) about words?