Cites
Have you heard of NOTPAPER? But that's beside the point. As CodeCat just explained, we are descriptive, not proscriptive.
There is no Wiktionary policy stating that users should "Ignore all rules". What other dictionaries do is irrelevant to what is done on Wiktionary.
You're not being descriptive. JavaScript does not describe Java. The passive approach taken is propagating a blatant falsehood that is well known by the experts in the field. So you've taken the amateur word of some editor and held it up on a pedestal against...
...you know what. That's fine. Folks will read the Wikipedia article long before coming here. This is a joke. I'm reaping what I sow on the Wikipedia side. Good one guys. Who needs common established expert undisputed facts when we can have a dictionary that covers misconceptions instead?
You are making an effort to avoid understanding us. I can't believe that Wikimedia editors would come here just to troll volunteers on a sister project.
We're describing the language how it's really used. Just because somebody is uneducated about programming doesn't mean they can't speak English. As long as we mark it as proscribed etc, it is acceptable as a definition.
TParis, it is not a misconception that some misinformed people have mistaken Java for Javascript before. It is fact, as shown by the quotations. Regardless of what words people should use, we document mistakes used in languages all the time. See for example Category:Misspellings by language.