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

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> It was a question.  Not even a question which I posed to you.

This is a public discussion.

> I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B.
> I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

> Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the
> word?  Probably not.  And that's probably a big part of the reason
> why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia.

Perhaps so.

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

> No, of course not.  I'm suggesting that they are titles which are
> different words for the same thing (synonyms).

The terms' contexts differ wildly.

Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?

> An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word
> "petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.

Agreed.

> So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and
> [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it
> would be fine?

No, because the primary topic for both "petrol" and "gasoline" is the
aforementioned petroleum-derived liquid mixture (so both titles should
lead directly to its article).

Conversely, the word "nigger" is known primarily as a slur applied to
black people, *not* an accepted synonym for "black people."

A "Petrol (word)" or "Gasoline (word)" article would be fine, provided
that reliable sources and Wikipedia consensus back the assertion that
the word itself possesses cultural/historical significance warranting
an encyclopedia article.  This probably isn't the case.

> Of course words aren't excluded!  As for "dictionary entries" being
> excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do
> you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries
> (usage, etymology, meaning)?

I'm referring to articles formatted as dictionary entries and articles
whose subjects should not (according to consensus) be presented in any
other manner.

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

> What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry".  Are you talking about
> length, or content?

The latter.  The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal
of material that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm
familiar.

But again, I acknowledge that Wikitionary isn't bound by this
convention and _could_ contain such information if its scope were
expanded.

> > As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms
> > from the language in which it's written.

> Not all dictionaries.  In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not
> comprehensive or random.

My point is that a dictionary typically lists and defines terms with
little regard for their societal impact.  "Door" is included because
the object that it describes is a common, everyday thing, *not*
because of any special attributes on the part of the word itself.

-- 
David Levy