On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemike <muzemike(a)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.
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.