Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:33, 3 September 2002

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

It's natural, when you see Wikipedia for the first time, to mistake it for a dictionary. Many of the entries, at present, are brief. So some people start an article, listing several senses of a term, and then stop working on that article, as though they were interested only in giving the meanings of various terms.

This is not a habit to be encouraged.

Nearly everyone here agrees that brief, "stub" articles are to be encouraged. There are some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort. Don't just give the meanings of the word. If you do just give the meaning of the word, nobody is going to be mad at you (except maybe Larry Sanger, but then, he gets mad at everybody :-) since he cares about Wikipedia so much). They'll simply take the entry to be a "stub" article, which will be expanded later. That's probably OK, in most cases.

Moreover, there are plenty of senses of terms that aren't of interest in an encyclopedia. They would be, in a dictionary, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. So it makes no sense to describe those other, mere dictionary senses of terms in Wikipedia articles (unless, somehow it is important to describe those senses in order to clarify the main topic of the article).

This is especially true in the case of biographical entries. There are special reference works known as genealogical or, more often, biographical, dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omited in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

While on the one hand we are all certainly delighted that Wikipedia is growing in breadth, some (but not all) of us view breadth at the expense of the very notion of what we are working on--an encyclopedia--as a bad idea.

Examples of articles that avoid being dictionary definitions by including "encyclopedic" information: Copra, Castanets.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Moreover, there are plenty of senses of terms that ''aren't'' of interest ''in an encyclopedia.'' They would be, ''in a dictionary,'' but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary.  So it makes no sense to describe those other, mere dictionary senses of terms in Wikipedia articles (unless, somehow it is important to describe those senses in order to clarify the ''main'' topic of the article).
+This is especially true in the case of biographical entries.  There are special reference works known as genealogical or, more often, biographical, dictionaries.  These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject.  This means that many genealogical details may be omited in  exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.
 While on the one hand we are all certainly delighted that Wikipedia is growing in ''breadth,'' some (but not all) of us view breadth ''at the expense'' of the very notion of what we are working on--an encyclopedia--as a bad idea.