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

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> 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.

In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its cultural
history, associations, et cetera, you wrote: "Can you give an example
of that in a traditional encyclopedia?"

This appeared to imply that because entries about words are present in
dictionaries and absent from traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia's
deviation from this convention can only be described as the inclusion
of dictionary entries.

My point is that Wikipedia contains a great deal of content, handled
in an encyclopedic manner, that traditional encyclopedias lack.  And
some of these subjects are traditionally covered, with varying degrees
of similarity, in other reference works.  But just as Wikipedia's
inclusion of articles about television episodes doesn't make Wikipedia
a TV almanac, its inclusion of articles about words doesn't make it 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.

Unless I've badly misunderstood Wiktionary's scope, its current rules
wouldn't allow this.

Of course, Wiktionary's scope is tied to that of a traditional
dictionary to no greater extent than Wikipedia's is tied to that of a
traditional encyclopedia.  So if the Wiktionary community were to
decide to permit such entries, I would reconsider my position.

> By the way, how does that article and the article on [[black people]]
> not violate "Articles whose titles are different words for the same
> thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged."

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's "Black people" article
and "Nigger" article cover the same subject?

One is about a racial classification of humans.  The other is about a
word commonly used as an ethnic slur.

> Because one of the unwritten exceptions to the guideline is that
> articles on terms which shouldn't be used in encyclopedias (without
> the quotation marks or italics) don't count.

Come again?

> 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?

As I said, the guideline addresses the inclusion (actually, the
exclusion) of dictionary entries, *not* words.

Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.

> > "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.

The guideline explains that content suited to these formats is
appropriate and inappropriate (respectively) for inclusion in
Wikipedia.  It isn't about reformatting dictionary definitions to make
them fit.

> > 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?

See above.

> 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?

As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from
the language in which it's written.  So while typically reliable, it
isn't contextually relevant.

-- 
David Levy