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

2010-12-31 Thread Fred Bauder 
> So does that mean we can restore the article on "the"?
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The

Good example of a poor decision. If nothing else, a discussion of how
Russian does without the, or a, or an but English seeming needs them
would be very interesting.

The question is how we could somehow modify this rigid approach. What
does it take to modify something that ingrained into policy?

Fred Bauder



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-31 Thread Ken Arromdee 
So does that mean we can restore the article on "the"?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-31 Thread Anthony 
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM, quiddity  wrote:
> 1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
> mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive
> discussions here is not very practical.

I would think that fewer participants would make decisive discussions easier.

> The mailing lists are good for
> brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number
> of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the
> "nature of Wikipedia".

Sorry, I couldn't resist plagiarizing Jimmy Wales and his widely
ignored principles from his user page.

> 2. Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic
> reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this
> suggestion.

Yes, I find wiki talk pages to be a terrible form of communication.
There's no push notification, no decent threading, post-hoc
censorship, a requirement to release everything you write under
CC-BY-SA, etc.  And the silly memes regarding Wikipedia talk pages
don't even allow people to utilize the benefits of a wiki - non-signed
content, modification of content, multi-person collaboration on a
single paragraph.

Wikis make sense for collaboration, but not for communication.  ~~~
and  never made any sense.

> However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to
> come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.

In this particular case, the mountain had already come to me.  I was
just objecting to your suggestion that it go back.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-31 Thread MuZemike 
This has always been the place for such (IMO, healthy) meta-discussion 
to occur, which what I think this is.

-MuZemike

On 12/31/2010 12:04 AM, quiddity wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity  wrote:
>>> Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that
>>> other interested parties can participate.
>>
>> It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here.  Very
>> limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on
>> the site itself.
>
> 1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
> mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive
> discussions here is not very practical. The mailing lists are good for
> brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number
> of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the
> "nature of Wikipedia".
>
> 2. Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic
> reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this
> suggestion. However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to
> come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.
>
> Quiddity
>
> * http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Anthony
>
> ** 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&direction=prev&oldid=140147011
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=140153625
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=195403930
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-30 Thread quiddity 
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity  wrote:
>> Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that
>> other interested parties can participate.
>
> It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here.  Very
> limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on
> the site itself.

1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive
discussions here is not very practical. The mailing lists are good for
brainstorming, alerting, and sharing, (etc), amongst the small number
of participants; they are not good for establishing a consensus on the
"nature of Wikipedia".

2. Given that you infrequently participate on-wiki,* and your historic
reticence to even communicate on-wiki,** I'm not surprised by this
suggestion. However, I would suggest that the mountain is unlikely to
come to you; instead, you must go to the mountain.

Quiddity

* http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Anthony

** 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&direction=prev&oldid=140147011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=140153625
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony&oldid=195403930

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-30 Thread Anthony 
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity  wrote:
> Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that
> other interested parties can participate.

It would be more helpful to move the on-wiki discussion here.  Very
limited meta-discussion of the nature of Wikipedia should be placed on
the site itself.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-30 Thread Ian Woollard 
On 29/12/2010, David Goodman  wrote:
> The point of our projects  as a whole, is to provide information,; it
> is much more important to make the information easy to find so people
> will not miss it, even by their usual habit of relying on the google
> hit & not following even the most obvious of cross-references, rather
> than argue about which of two places to put it.

I think that ultimately this position is harmful. Information is
extremely valuable, but putting things in the consistent places and
generating and sticking to standards raises quality. As much as
possible we want one, fairly obvious place to put each bit of
information, not multiple places where they can be found, and doing
that involves making clear-cut distinctions that we can explain to
people.

WMF is trying to write reference works, not just collect piles of
information (the internet does that). Being a reference work requires
that they be capable of being referred to and classified according to
some scheme that our policies outline.

It therefore helps to keep word articles separate from general concept
articles in some way. It doesn't necessarily matter how you do it,
provided there are standards for both. I don't think that words are
concepts in the same way- or if they are, different languages have
different concepts in that sense, and hence words are less general and
less useful.

> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-30 Thread quiddity 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Carcharoth  wrote:
> This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which
> are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the
> discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do
> that now?

Agreed.

Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that
other interested parties can participate.

Earlier this year, when one editor was beati^H^H^H examining this
issue closely, dozens of relevant links and examples were collated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_RfC_on_words
and much discussion took place (in various locations).
The last 2 threads on the talkpage might be helpful for interested
people to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_RfC_on_words
If the editors who object to articles-about-words can help fill in the
Table of Evidence in that last talkpage thread, it might move this
discussion forward. As it stands, the precedent, practice, and RS
references, all support the inclusion of a few articles about notable
words in an encyclopedia.
(What a "notable word" is, is where some opinions differ, and is what
WP:GNG is for. It is generally agreed that just being listed in
dictionaries is insufficient for standalone notability).

WP:NAD hasn't changed much, since it was written in 2001-2003, and
needs to be understood in that context (and needs to be updated, but
everyone was exhausted by the last disagreement, so no progress has
been made on that, yet).


One way of looking at it, is as a simple case of Quantity of
Reliable&Verifiable Content (aka notability). For example:
Subsection in Main article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Etymology
Split-out comprehensive subpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29
Wiktionary's coverage:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chemistry

Other words are notable by themselves, and do not have a "parent topic". eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

In contrast, the vast majority of words only have enough content for a
single sentence, or section, within the article about the topic, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Etymology
some editors believe that even that should be removed, and that all
etymological information should be banished from Wikipedia. This is
not practical, because our articles AND our projects are generally
intended to be comprehensive by themselves (to successfully
standalone, eg if printed).


Relatedly, Wiktionary is /not/ an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic_dictionary
If someone were to copy all the content from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
to
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou
it would simply be deleted.


and other much repeated points.


Hope that helps. Please help us clarify the wording of WP:NAD to make
these issues clear.
Quiddity
(I'm still on wiki-break, but will try to follow this topic, as I'm
familiar with many of the recurring questions and answers)

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-29 Thread MuZemike 
On 12/28/2010 9:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemike  wrote:
>> We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
>> comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
>> all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received
>> much more widely than all other wikis.
>
> You think popularity is the cause of Wiktionary sucking?  I think it's
> the effect.

In a sense, yes. The amount of influence and power Wikipedia yields on 
the rest of the Internet is amazing; we may not be aware of that as we 
tend to naturally look from the inside out and not from the rest of the 
world's POV.

And I feel that does get in the way of us trying to organize the 
information we have put together so far (as we humans like to do) - 
words and definitions in one place (the dictionary), basic descriptions 
of topics (the encyclopedia) in another place, locations (an atlas or 
gazetteer, which we still yet to find a way to incorporate a wiki 
structure for something like that), and so on.

I know people don't like what I say when I sometimes tell them to think 
of Wikipedia (or whichever wiki you are working on) sans the high search 
rankings, popularity, etc., and just concentrate on the content itself. 
Are we organizing the information in the most efficient and logical ways 
we can? Are we maintaining a stable and sustainable wiki in both content 
and community? I feel those are the questions we ultimately, as a 
collection of wiki communities, need to always keep in mind.

-MuZemike

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
I wrote:

> > The text in question (the wording of which could be improved) is
> > intended to refer to the concept of having two articles about the same
> > subject (a particular petroleum-derived liquid mixture, in this case).

Anthony replied:

> That wouldn't make sense.  Dictionaries don't have two entries about the
> same subject.  They have one entry about the word petrol, and one entry
> about the word gasoline.

Indeed, and the text refers to the possibility of Wikipedia having
separate articles for "petrol" and "gasoline," which briefly occurred
in 2005.  This was problematic because unlike the corresponding
dictionary entries, both articles covered the same subject (the
substance to which those terms refer).

The policy's editors weren't thinking of the highly unlikely
hypothetical scenario in which Wikipedia articles about the words
"gasoline" and/or "petrol" were written.

> > > You seem to go back and forth on whether
> > > [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] is stating that articles
> > > should not be formatted as dictionary entries, or whether it imposes
> > > notability requirements of its own.

> > If you interpreted anything that I wrote to mean the latter, you
> > misunderstood.

> I asked if it was an inclusion guideline or a formatting guideline, and
> you said it was an inclusion guideline.

Inclusion guideline != notability guideline

Most elements of "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (to which
"Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria" redirects) are unrelated to notability.

> If you're now saying it is in fact a formatting guideline, then you can
> ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.

No, I'm not saying that.  As previously noted, formatting issues are tangential.

> If you're saying that it's an inclusion guideline, and not a formatting
> guideline, because it states that articles which are formatted as
> dictionary entries should not be included...then you can ignore all my
> posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.

That's part of what I'm saying.

> Doesn't transwiking still suck, or have the developers finally delivered
> on the features which for so long were put off until "after single user
> login is finished"?

I'm unfamiliar with the situation.

> I'm not actually all that sure whether or not Wikipedians *should*
> ignore [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].  I was just
> defending my statement that they do.

And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the policy.

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Carcharoth 
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which
are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the
discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do
that now?

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> How about creating, within Wikimedia, a fork which incorporates some or
> all of the ideas we've been discussing. For example a dictionary which
> does discuss the development of concepts at length.

The Wiktionarians probably wouldn't like that.

Actually, the Wikipedians probably wouldn't either.

Which is not to say it's a bad idea.  But neither is world peace.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemike  wrote:
> We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
> comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
> all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received
> much more widely than all other wikis.

You think popularity is the cause of Wiktionary sucking?  I think it's
the effect.

David Levy doesn't quote like everyone else, so I've stripped the
attributions from the following:

>> It's quite explicitly banned by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]],
>> which doesn't mention anything about cultural/historical significance, isn't
>> it?
>
> The text in question (the wording of which could be improved) is
> intended to refer to the concept of having two articles about the same
> subject (a particular petroleum-derived liquid mixture, in this case).

That wouldn't make sense.  Dictionaries don't have two entries about
the same subject.  They have one entry about the word petrol, and one
entry about the word gasoline.

>> You seem to go back and forth on whether
>> [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] is stating that articles
>> should not be formatted as dictionary entries, or whether it imposes
>> notability requirements of its own.
>
> If you interpreted anything that I wrote to mean the latter, you 
> misunderstood.

I asked if it was an inclusion guideline or a formatting guideline,
and you said it was an inclusion guideline.

If you're now saying it is in fact a formatting guideline, then you
can ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.

If you're saying that it's an inclusion guideline, and not a
formatting guideline, because it states that articles which are
formatted as dictionary entries should not be included...then you can
ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.

> Taken as a whole, these articles fall somewhere between the the types
> of content found in conventional dictionaries and encyclopedias.  I
> don't assert that it inherently makes more sense to include them in
> Wikipedia than it does to include them in Wiktionary, and I probably
> would support a proposal to permit the latter and transwiki them en
> masse.

Doesn't transwiking still suck, or have the developers finally
delivered on the features which for so long were put off until "after
single user login is finished"?

>> Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
>> requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
>> requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
>> likely be in the former, and not the latter.
>
> For whatever reason, that isn't how things have turned out.  Perhaps
> we should shift our focus toward exploring the possibility.

That's fine with me.  I'm not actually all that sure whether or not
Wikipedians *should* ignore [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a
dictionary]].  I was just defending my statement that they do.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Fred Bauder 
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, MuZemike  wrote:
>> We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
>> comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
>> all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received
>> much more widely than all other wikis.
>>
>> After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come
>> full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly
>> the
>> dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the
>> freely-editable
>> portion of the Internet.
>
>
> ...Hmm.
>
> I guess it's a good sign, if we think of the positives, that in some
> areas our closest credible competition for WP is another WMF project.
> 8-)
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com

Ok, hold that thought.

How about creating, within Wikimedia, a fork which incorporates some or
all of the ideas we've been discussing. For example a dictionary which
does discuss the development of concepts at length.

Fred Bauder



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
I wrote:

> > 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.

Anthony replied:

> What about having both?  Would that be fine?

Yes, provided that each of the two words independently met the
aforementioned criteria.

> It's quite explicitly banned by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]],
> which doesn't mention anything about cultural/historical significance, isn't
> it?

The text in question (the wording of which could be improved) is
intended to refer to the concept of having two articles about the same
subject (a particular petroleum-derived liquid mixture, in this case).
 In 2005, someone actually attempted to create separate "petrol" and
"gasoline" articles for this very purpose.

Hypothetical "Petrol (word)" and "Gasoline (word)" articles would
cover separate subjects (the two words themselves).  But of course, I
don't advocate the creation of such articles.

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

> It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
> any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.

Indeed, I've acknowledged that such material is not traditionally
included in an encyclopedia.  My point is that it isn't traditionally
included in a dictionary either.  I note this to refute the assertion
that it constitutes a dictionary entry.

> > 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.

> And this differs from Wikipedia how?

Wikipedia doesn't include articles about words (as opposed to the
concepts to which they refer) unless there is consensus that the words
themselves carry extraordinary cultural/historical significance (as
corroborated by reliable sources).

> Yes, you stated a rule that articles about words (and only words?) have
> to have "cultural/historical significance",

I plainly stated that "we apply our general notability guideline
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline].";

My references to "cultural/historical significance" and "societal
impact" are informal descriptions of how a word can comply with that
guideline.

> but as far as I can tell there's nothing about that rule in
> [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].

Again, that policy pertains to the exclusion of dictionary entries.
Most articles about worlds, even if written in Wikipedia's normal
style, would essentially amount to dictionary entries (and therefore
be inappropriate).  But if a word happens to meet the criteria
outlined in our general notability guideline, we treat it as we do any
other subject.

> You seem to go back and forth on whether
> [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] is stating that articles
> should not be formatted as dictionary entries, or whether it imposes
> notability requirements of its own.

If you interpreted anything that I wrote to mean the latter, you misunderstood.

To quote an earlier reply, "I'm referring to articles formatted as
dictionary entries and articles whose subjects should not (according
to consensus) be presented in any other manner."

In other words, articles formatted as dictionary entries are
inappropriate (even if they pertain to subjects for which legitimate
encyclopedia articles could be written) and dictionary entries dressed
up as encyclopedia articles (i.e. articles containing no more than one
would find at Wikitionary, apart from formatting imitating that of
Wikipedia) are inappropriate too.

> And most of the material I think would be *more likely* to be in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.  Meaning, etymology, usage,
> derivatives.  These are all things more likely to be found in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.

Taken as a whole, these articles fall somewhere between the the types
of content found in conventional dictionaries and encyclopedias.  I
don't assert that it inherently makes more sense to include them in
Wikipedia than it does to include them in Wiktionary, and I probably
would support a proposal to permit the latter and transwiki them en
masse.

> Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
> requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
> requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
> likely be in the former, and not the latter.

For whatever reason, that isn't how things have turned out.  Perhaps
we should shift our focus toward exploring the possibility.

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
Ian Woollard wrote:

> I'd like to borrow your magic machine that you seem to think you have
> that you apparently think tells you what entire communities think some
> time.

I'm referring to consensus, not unanimity.

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread George Herbert 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, MuZemike  wrote:
> We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
> comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
> all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received
> much more widely than all other wikis.
>
> After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come
> full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the
> dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable
> portion of the Internet.


...Hmm.

I guess it's a good sign, if we think of the positives, that in some
areas our closest credible competition for WP is another WMF project.
8-)


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread MuZemike 
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to 
comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over 
all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received 
much more widely than all other wikis.

After pondering that for a while, one can conclude that we have come 
full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the 
dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable 
portion of the Internet.

-MuZemike

On 12/28/2010 7:56 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Wikipedia makes a better dictionary than Wiktionary, much like it does
> a better job at journaling news stories than Wikinews.
>
> I think you have something to the point that it has to do with "the
> more flowing style found at Wikipedia".  The failures of Wikinews and
> Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much
> structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements, and in Wikinews
> the short work cycles.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Goodman 
The point of our projects  as a whole, is to provide information,; it
is much more important to make the information easy to find so people
will not miss it, even by their usual habit of relying on the google
hit & not following even the most obvious of cross-references, rather
than argue about which of two places to put it.

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
>> > any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.
>>
>> And most of the material I think would be *more likely* to be in a
>> dictionary than an encyclopedia.  Meaning, etymology, usage,
>> derivatives.  These are all things more likely to be found in a
>> dictionary than an encyclopedia.
>>
>> Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
>> requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
>> requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
>> likely be in the former, and not the latter.
>>
>
> Well stated, and I think that clearly states the purpose of "not a
> dictionary". It's not anything to do with notability, it's what belongs
> where.
>
>>
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Stephanie Daugherty 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> >>> 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.
> >
> > It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
> > any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.
>
> And most of the material I think would be *more likely* to be in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.  Meaning, etymology, usage,
> derivatives.  These are all things more likely to be found in a
> dictionary than an encyclopedia.
>
> Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
> requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
> requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
> likely be in the former, and not the latter.
>

Well stated, and I think that clearly states the purpose of "not a
dictionary". It's not anything to do with notability, it's what belongs
where.

>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
>>> 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.
>
> It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
> any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.

And most of the material I think would be *more likely* to be in a
dictionary than an encyclopedia.  Meaning, etymology, usage,
derivatives.  These are all things more likely to be found in a
dictionary than an encyclopedia.

Basically, if you took a dictionary, and removed the space
requirements, and then took an encyclopedia, and removed the space
requirements, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger would
likely be in the former, and not the latter.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, David Levy  wrote:
> Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?

No, I don't.

> 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.

What about having both?  Would that be fine?  It's quite explicitly
banned by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], which doesn't
mention anything about cultural/historical significance, isn't it?

>> > 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.

It also contains a great deal of material that one would not find in
any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar.

>> > 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.

And this differs from Wikipedia how?

Yes, you stated a rule that articles about words (and only words?)
have to have "cultural/historical significance", but as far as I can
tell there's nothing about that rule in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a
dictionary]].

You seem to go back and forth on whether [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not
a dictionary]] is stating that articles should not be formatted as
dictionary entries, or whether it imposes notability requirements of
its own.  I've mostly snipped that part of our discussion, because it
was getting far too circular.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Ian Woollard 
On 29/12/2010, David Levy  wrote:
> Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>> But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if
>> we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave
>> them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will
>> be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if
>> any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're
>> getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're
>> getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.
>
> Your opinion of what constitutes "encyclopedic stuff" differs from
> that of the English Wikipedia community at large.

I'd like to borrow your magic machine that you seem to think you have
that you apparently think tells you what entire communities think some
time.

Irrespective of that perhaps we should try to ensure popular buy-in to
sensible decisions, as opposed to popular buy-in to popular decisions.

That is so often so very easy, but not always so very helpful.

> --
> David Levy

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
Ian Woollard wrote:

> But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if
> we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave
> them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will
> be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if
> any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're
> getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're
> getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.

Your opinion of what constitutes "encyclopedic stuff" differs from
that of the English Wikipedia community at large.

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread 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

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Ian Woollard 
On 28/12/2010, David Levy  wrote:
> 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.

Mostly true, but on the other hand there is no way to add extended
dictionary articles in the Wikipedia in an encyclopedic way, whereas
you probably could with television episodes.

it simply can't be done.

For example even if you add all notable terms from all possible
languages, and relate them to the encyclopedic concepts, after you did
that, you could always look up those terms in a dictionary anyway, so
there's little point.

But right now the WMF doesn't have an encyclopedic dictionary, so if
we put those articles in the Wikipedia, and labelled them, and gave
them their own policies, then the people that want to write them will
be happy, and the people that want to read them won't learn much if
any encyclopedic information, but at least they'll know what they're
getting, whereas right now the Wikipedia is implying that they're
getting encyclopedic stuff, which they really aren't.

> --
> David Levy

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy  wrote:
> 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.

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

>> > 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.

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.

>> 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?

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

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

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

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?

>> 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 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)?

> 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?

>> 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.

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

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread 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

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Fred Bauder 
> While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally,
> or
> some cases not literally enough, the point of "not a dictionary" to me in
> our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we
> didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. 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. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put
> behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just "a word" then
> it
> might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard.
>
> -Steph
>

Extensive information on the development of a concept is inappropriate in
a dictionary. For example the word "robot".

Fred Bauder


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
>> 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.

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."

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.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Stephanie Daugherty 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

>
> Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that
> was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce
> and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is
> censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is
> censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.
>
> Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate
> material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.
>
> "Not censored" is about just that, it doesn't mean we throw out other
> content policies, it means that we don't remove offensive material simply
> for the sake of it's offensiveness. Other policies that call for removal of
> material such as legal requirements to do so, BLP, notability, reliable
> sources, still apply. Good taste, and encyclopedic nature generally should
> still apply. The reason "not censored" even exists is to make sure that
> censorship doesn't trump writing an encyclopedia, not so that people can go
> out of their way to be offensive. As an example, an article about breast
> cancer may very well have pictures of breasts in a medical context. Those
> images are inherently encyclopedic in nature - "not censored" is meant to
> give us firm ground to stand on when someone cries foul over those images.
> or any other encyclopedic content.
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
 wrote:
> Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that,
> guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION test,
> aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other
> exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast
> rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it
> applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's
> notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.

I think that's roughly the way the guidelines is interpreted by most,
though with a special de facto exception for offensive terms (I think
the way it works is that no one wants to write an encyclopedia article
about the concept behind the offensive term, so the article becomes
one about the word, and not the concept).

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Fred Bauder 
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
> notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with
> inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary
> policies.
> Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..."
> standards
> dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where
> something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's
> notability
> - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it
> to
> cover the corner cases.
>
> Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just
> that,
> guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION
> test,
> aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any
> other
> exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and
> fast
> rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it
> applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's
> notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
>
> There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What
> wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied
> ones
> is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline
> on
> it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that
> offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find
> content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content
> stands
> under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the
> content
> shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not
> censored"
> isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to
> decide.

Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that
was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce
and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is
censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is
censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.

Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate
material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.

Fred Bauder



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Stephanie Daugherty 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:


>
> 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?
>
> The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with
inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies.
Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..." standards
dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where
something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability
- they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it to
cover the corner cases.

Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that,
guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION test,
aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other
exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast
rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it
applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's
notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.

There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What
wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones
is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline on
it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that
offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find
content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands
under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content
shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not censored"
isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to
decide.




>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy  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  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
 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?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Stephanie Daugherty 
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally, or
some cases not literally enough, the point of "not a dictionary" to me in
our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we
didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. 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. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put
behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just "a word" then it
might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard.

-Steph



On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder  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? How did we get from "difference engine" to "computer"?
>
> >
> > And I guess if "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is more
> > explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion
> > guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy.
>
> Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry
> Sanger.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Faith is about what you really truly believe in, not about what you are
taught to believe.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Fred Bauder 

>
> 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? How did we get from "difference engine" to "computer"?

>
> And I guess if "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is more
> explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion
> guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy.

Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry
Sanger.

Fred Bauder


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread 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

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy  wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> > The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each
>> > of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes.
>> > Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
>
> Anthony replied:
>
>> That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether
>> or not has television episode guide entries.  As it stands we're
>> discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries.
>
> 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).

That point is not relevant, though.

> 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".

>> > As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a
>> > traditional encyclopedia.
>
>> And that's my whole point.  Wikipedia *does* contain lots of
>> dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it
>> shouldn't.
>
> 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.

>> > > And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the
>> > > article be [[the word "meh"]]?
>
>> > Why?
>
>> Disambiguation.  I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though.
>> It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is
>> a noun would suffer from the problem.  [[shithead]] should be
>> about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is
>> about dogs, not the word dog.
>
> 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)

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.

And I guess if "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is more
explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion
guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
I wrote:

> > The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each
> > of the 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes.
> > Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?

Anthony replied:

> That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether
> or not has television episode guide entries.  As it stands we're
> discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries.

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).

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.

> > As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a
> > traditional encyclopedia.

> And that's my whole point.  Wikipedia *does* contain lots of
> dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it
> shouldn't.

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).

> > > And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the
> > > article be [[the word "meh"]]?

> > Why?

> Disambiguation.  I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though.
> It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is
> a noun would suffer from the problem.  [[shithead]] should be
> about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is
> about dogs, not the word dog.

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

Otherwise, titular disambiguation (the main function of which is
navigational, not informational) isn't needed.  A subject's basic
nature should be explained in its article's lead.

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy  wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> > In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural
>> > history, associations etc.
>
> Anthony replied:
>
>> Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
>
> The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the
> 144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes.  Can you give an
> example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?

That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not
has television episode guide entries.  As it stands we're discussing
whether or not it has dictionary entries.

> As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a
> traditional encyclopedia.

And that's my whole point.  Wikipedia *does* contain lots of
dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it
shouldn't.

>> And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be
>> [[the word "meh"]]?
>
> Why?

Disambiguation.  I guess [["meh"]] would be acceptable, though.  It's
not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun
would suffer from the problem.  [[shithead]] should be about
shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not
the word dog.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread David Levy 
Steve Bennett wrote:

> > In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural
> > history, associations etc.

Anthony replied:

> Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?

The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the
144 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" television episodes.  Can you give an
example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?

As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a
traditional encyclopedia.

> And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be
> [[the word "meh"]]?

Why?

-- 
David Levy

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit  wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
>> to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
>> requirements...
>
> Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a "failure".  But if it is, it's
> arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that
> structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a
> multilingual one).

If Mediawiki is keeping the Wiktionarians from succeeding, then they
should fork Mediawiki.  But I don't think that's the real problem.  A
better candidate would that the imposition of top-down structure in a
wiki just doesn't work.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Steve Summit 
Anthony wrote:
> The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
> to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
> requirements...

Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a "failure".  But if it is, it's
arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that
structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a
multilingual one).

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable
> deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.

What makes a word notable?  Without looking in Wikipedia:  Is "argh"
notable?  Is "ahoy" notable?  Is "because" notable?  Is "awesome"
notable?  Is "anorexic" notable?  Is "shithead" notable?  Is "hungry"
notable?  How do we decide whether or not a word is "notable"?  What
are the guidelines that should be used?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>> Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean?

By the way, I just want to point out that Wiktionary, like most
dictionaries, contains more than just word meanings.  It also contains
usage and etymology, which seems to me to be exactly what that
Wikipedia article contains.  The only difference is that Wikipedia
contains it in a more free-form article, and that it is more complete.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony  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.

Good, me too.

> 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.

Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?

And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be
[[the word "meh"]]?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Steve Bennett 
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony  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

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the
>> recipes though; not many left.
>
> I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish,
> and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one
> etymology, so there isn't that problem.

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.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Interesting.  I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
>> guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
>> dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to
>> etymology, usage, and profanity.  I'm interested in seeing what the
>> original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
>
> {{fact}}
>
> "Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be
> encyclopaedic.

What's very few?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  1%?  And what's "could not be
encyclopaedic"?

There are many articles about terms, phrases, slang, interjections,
adjectives, verbs, etc.  In most cases they could be turned into an
encyclopedia article - after all you can turn just about any topic
into an encyclopedia article - but they aren't encyclopedia articles,
they're long, well-written, interesting, dictionary entries.

> And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too
> strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to
> dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.

That seems to be the prevalent attitude, which is exactly why I think
the policy is widely ignored.  If you make a dictionary entry which is
more than a few paragraphs long, suddenly it's accepted as an
encyclopedia article.

Maybe it's a good idea.  A with news articles in wikinews, Wikipedia
seems to do a better job at making dictionary entries than Wiktionary.
 But if that's what you want to do, at least make it explicit.

> Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a
> word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that
> Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia.
> However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of
> *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word*
> articles.

Meh.

No, really.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Steve Bennett 
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the
> recipes though; not many left.

I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish,
and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one
etymology, so there isn't that problem.

Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Fred Bauder 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Interesting.  I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
>> guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
>> dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to
>> etymology, usage, and profanity.  I'm interested in seeing what the
>> original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
>
> {{fact}}
>
> "Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be
> encyclopaedic. And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too
> strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to
> dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
>
> Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a
> word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that
> Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia.
> However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of
> *encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word*
> articles.
>
> Steve

Yes, a poor policy if taken literally, but that seems to be true of all
language. Inadequate formulations like that are often ignored in practice
when there is something interesting and relevant to include. Another is
"Wikipedia is not a how-to manual". The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.

Fred Bauder



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

2010-12-28 Thread Steve Bennett 
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Interesting.  I came to accept the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
> guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
> dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to
> etymology, usage, and profanity.  I'm interested in seeing what the
> original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.

{{fact}}

"Fairly widely ignored"? I see very few articles that could not be
encyclopaedic. And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too
strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to
dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.

Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a
word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that
Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia.
However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of
*encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word*
articles.

Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l