Wiktionary (a portmanteau of wiki and dictionary, and unlike other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, this word contains only a fraction of the character-string "wiki") is a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 151 languages. Unlike standard dictionaries, it is written collaboratively by volunteers using wiki software, allowing articles to be changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site.
Like its sister project Wikipedia, Wiktionary is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Because Wiktionary is not limited by print space considerations, most of Wiktionary's language editions provide definitions and translations of words from many languages, and some editions offer additional information typically found in Thesauruses and lexicons. Additionally, the English Wiktionary includes Wikisaurus, a category that serves as a thesaurus, including lists of slang words,[1] and the Simple English Wiktionary, compiled using the Basic English subset of the English language.
History and development
YOU'RE GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 MO****FU***!!!
counts at the largest eight Wiktionary editions (data from November 2007).]]
Despite Wiktionary's large number of]] at the Vietnamese Wiktionary.</ref> These imported entries make up virtually all of the Vietnamese edition's offering. Like the English edition, the French Wiktionary has imported the approximately 20,000 entries in the Unihan database of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters. The French Wiktionary grew rapidly in 2006 thanks in large part to bots copying many entries from old,members had hoped. As of June 2007, the French, Vietnamese, Turkish, Arabic, Italian, Swedish, Korean, Dutch, Lithuanian, Persian, Sicilian, and Simple English editions have switched to the contest-chosen logo; the remaining editions use either the textual logo or, in the case of the Galician Wiktionary, a logo that depicts a dictionary bearing the Galician coat of arms.
Critical reception
Critical reception of Wiktionary has been mixed. Jill Lepore wrote in the article "Noah’s Ark" for The New Yorker, (November 6, 2006)[2]
There’s no show of hands at Wiktionary. There’s not even an editorial staff. "Be your own lexicographer!" might be Wiktionary’s motto. Who needs experts? Why pay good money for a dictionary written by lexicographers when we can cobble one together ourselves?
Wiktionary isn’t so much republican or democratic as Maoist. And it’s only as good as the copyright-expired books from which it pilfers. If you look up the word "Webster" in the Wiktionary, you will be redirected to this handy tip:
Noah Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1911 (published by Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA) is a public domain dictionary, as is a 1913 edition, that can be used to empower Wiktionary with more definitions.
But, hey, at least they got his first name right.
Keir Graff’s review for Booklist was less critical:
Is there a place for Wiktionary? Undoubtedly. The industry and enthusiasm of its many creators are proof that there’s a market. And it’s wonderful to have another strong source to use when searching the odd terms that pop up in today’s fast-changing world and the online environment. But as with so many Web sources (including this column), it’s best used by sophisticated users in conjunction with more reputable sources.
References in other publications are fleeting and part of larger discussions of Wikipedia, not progressing beyond a definition, although David Brooks in The Nashua Telegraph described it as wild and woolly.[3] (Wooly is defined as "confused" and "unrestrained."[4]) One of the impediments to independent coverage of Wiktionary is the continuing confusion that it is merely an extension of Wikipedia.[5] In 2005, PC Magazine rated Wiktionary as one of the Internet's "Top 101 Web Sites,"[6] although little information was given about the site.
Wiktionary statistics
See also
References
- ^ See "Creating a Wikisaurus entry" for information on the structure of Wikisaurus entries. An example of a well-formatted entry would be "Wikisaurus:insane".
- ^ The full article is not available on-line. Jill Lepore. "Noah's Ark" (Abstract), The New Yorker, 6 November 2006. Retrieved on 2007-04-21.
- ^ David Brooks, "Online, interactive encyclopedia not just for geeks anymore, because everyone seems to need it now, more than ever!" The Nashua Telegraph (August 4, 2004)
- ^ wooly. Wiktionary.
- ^ In this citation, the author refers to Wiktionary as part of the Wikipedia site: Adapted from an article by Naomi DeTullio. "Wikis for Librarians" (PDF newsletter), NETLS News #142, Northeast Texas Library System, 2006 (1st Quarter), p. 15. Retrieved on 2007-04-21.
- ^ Wiktionary. Top 101 Web Sites. PC Magazine (2005-04-06). Retrieved on 2005-12-16.
- ^ List of Wiktionary editions, ranked by article count. Accessed June 25, 2007.
External links
Look up Wiktionary in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
|
