Criticism of Wiktionary

From Wikinfo

As the Wiktionary is based on the format of Wikipedia, it takes most of the hybes from it, including vandalism or rogue sysops. While it has not yes taken up most of the other flawed systems from Wikipedia like notability or requiring sources for every word you type, it is going in that direction slowly and surely.

Despite Wiktionary's large number of entries, most of the entries and many of the definitions at the project's largest language editions were created by bots that found creative ways to generate entries or (rarely) automatically imported thousands of entries from previously-published dictionaries.

Seven of the 18 bots registered at the English Wiktionary^[1] created 163,000 of the entries there.^[2] Only 259 entries remain (each containing many definitions) on Wiktionary from the original import by Websterbot from public domain sources; the majority of those imports have been split out to thousands of proper entries manually. Another one of these bots, "ThirdPersBot," was responsible for the addition of a number of third-person conjugations that would not receive their own entries in standard dictionaries; for instance, it defined "smoulders" as the "third-person singular simple present form of smoulder." Excluding these 163,000 entries, the English Wiktionary would have about 137,000 entries, including terms unique to languages other than English, making it smaller than most monolingual print dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, has 615,000 headwords, while Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged has 475,000 entries (with many additional embedded headwords). It should be noted, though, that more detailed statistics now exist to more clearly distinguish genuine entries from minor (small) entries.

Critical reception

Since its founding in 2002, critical reception of Wiktionary has been mixed. Jill Lepore wrote in the article "Noah’s Ark" for The New Yorker, (November 6, 2006)^[3]

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 of The Nashua Telegraph described it as wild and woolly.^[4] (Wooly is defined as "confused" and "unrestrained."^[5]) One of the impediments to independent coverage of Wiktionary is the continuing confusion that it is merely an extension of Wikipedia.^[6] In 2005, PC Magazine rated Wiktionary as one of the Internet's "Top 101 Web Sites,"^[7] although little information was given about the site.

References