Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com 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)
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)
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)
On 12/28/2010 9:40 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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)
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com 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)
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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com 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)
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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com 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)
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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com 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)
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)
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)
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 fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content). Anthony replied: That point is not relevant, though. Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant. I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored. What makes something an encyclopedia article about a word? Sounds to me like another way to describe a dictionary. Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know. So Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it. No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. That begs the question. Wikipedia obviously only includes articles about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. But what is it that's *different* about words, which justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline? This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are. Sounds like formatting to me. We use the format Foo (word) or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see Man (word). I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see: *troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression) That's why I wrote or similar. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one. Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? Do dictionaries count as reliable sources? On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. So Wikipedia shouldn't have articles (verbose dictionary entries) about words? ___ 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com 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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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)
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)
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)
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)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com 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)
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
