what does polysemic actually mean
(Question) If anyone can edit Wiktionary anonymously, what checks are in place preventing a miscreant from making random bogus changes to thousands of entries? or an honest user from making unforgivable errrorrs?
(For example) The lepton was defined as a boson, yet it seems highly unlikely that a scientist could make such a mistake, for there are only 2 particle groups (bosons and fermions). (Solution) Wiktionary should send out letters to graduates of various fields (such as History and Biology), explaining to them the nature and goals of Wiktionary and other Wiki projects, and then inviting them to become editors; asking them to contribute ~30 minutes a week to the project. Anonymous users may still add definitions and make modifications, yet all such modifications must be reviewed by a verified editor before being published, making error, bias, and lies the only limit to the user developement of Wiktionary. After all, a dictionary is meant to describe, and is not meant to be a bulletin board for the average brain-dead god-fearing primate.
- You are the check, I am. Recent Changes allows everyone to see who has been editing what, and therefore ensure everyone is making meaningful edits. There are some who will add bogus data, and more who add something based on misconception or misinformation, but also there are folks like you who spot the mistake and fix it. There already are projects where only experts may contribute, they are text books, they are published references, the essence of Wiki* is to have everyone contribute their knowledge, have everyone edit and augment that knowledge, leading to a more complete, more available reference. TheDaveRoss
Confusion between language lists at www.wiktionary.org and Wiktionary#Active_WiktionariesEdit
Does anyone else feel there is confusion betwen these two lists? And the fact that the first page lists the names of languages in the target language, which is great if you're a speaker looking for a dictionry, but not if you don't speak the language, and are looking for a "immersive dictionary" that is actually defined in the target language.
I find the second page (and the link to the Irish wiktionary) only by clicking on the Complete List link, which is at the BOTTOM of the page, which lists the common name in English, as well as the name in the target language. I don't really see the point of the first page, except as a sort of 'advirtisement' for the Wiktionary as a whole.
BTW, the site for the Irish wiktionary is 'ga.wiktionary.org'. GA is the country code for Gabon, not Ireland. Ireland is IE.. I'm not sure if that should be broght up here, or on the ga.wiktionary.org site (I don't know enough Irish yet to do so though..)
-- Jim Witte
- I'm not sure I follow. meta:Wiktionary#Active Wiktionaries lists all language Wiktionaries that are open for editing and have significant activity. The http://www.wiktionary.org/ page is the portal used by Chinese, French, Russian, German, Turkish, Vietnamese and English speakers, to find one that they can understand. meta:Wiktionary#List of all Wiktionaries lists all the Wiktionaries that the WMF currently operates. The w:List of ISO 639-2 codes#I Alpha-2 codes are where the "ga" came from. Lastly, you're more likely to get a quick response to questions like these, at The information desk, than here. --Connel MacKenzie 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Anarchy vs ChaosEdit
Why does this not result in total anarchy? Well, to some extent it does! But we've found that most people want to provide helpful edits. Records are kept of all changes, so even bad edits can easily be reverted by other users.
Minor point in terms of language usage: The term anarchy appears to show language bias for the same reasons shown in the usage notes for the word. If anything, Wikimedia projects seem to demonstrate the positives (and some of the negatives) of anarchic self-organization. Thus, substitution of the word chaos for Anarchy may be more appropriate. -- Mickey Mephistopheles 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Greek wiktionary has gotten over 100.000 entries in the last few months; why hasn't it been moved to the 100.000+ category? 220.127.116.11 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this vandalism?Edit
The last part of norms etc reads
We tend to cater to the highest. "Lower common denominators" tend politely not to touch articles they know nothing about!
This makes no sense, has someone tampered with it?--Kylemew 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, but it is gone now. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)