Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keitei (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 28 August 2006 (→‎Wikipedia is not a usage guide: simplify, punctuation, make less awkward). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of What Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary project!


Nearly everyone here agrees that in general, stub articles are to be encouraged, provided they meet certain criteria. There are likewise some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable for beginning an article. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort —don't just give the meanings of the word. Instead, they should simply take the entry to be a "stub" article, which will be expanded later. That's probably OK, in most cases, but some view this as either a violation of the WINAD policy, or otherwise meritous of deletion. Deletion is a necessary process on Wikipedia and articles which do not meet minimum reasonable criteria can be deleted rather quickly —for some, the potential of a stub is not as important as the fact that it's not yet an article.

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).

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.

Now that that's out of the way, note that while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, our companion project Wiktionary is. Wikipedia articles that are mere dictionary definitions should be tagged {{Move to Wiktionary}}. Template:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things

Wikipedia is not a usage guide

Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom).

Articles that have been heavily cut to avoid becoming usage guides include gender-neutral pronoun and non-sexist language. Articles with information on how a word is used include singular they, homophobia, and sexism, SNAFU.

By a simple extension of the latter, Wikipedia is not a hacker/computer usage or other slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia. (See meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey for a historical example.) (But see jargon file; also, articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on hacker culture are very welcome, and insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have.)

Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary

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 omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement. A good measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources. Minor characters may of course be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered).

Good definitions

"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." (Definition)

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary&oldid=72349170"