Talk:Wiktionary

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Can someone explain to me why Wiktionary failed RFV per inclusion of brands? The Citations:Wiktionary are the following ones:

• Q1: 2008, John Broughton, Wikipedia: the missing manual, O'Reilly Media, page 428

  The sister projects that the Wikimedia foundation supports, such as Wiktionary, fulfill some of the roles that Wikipedia does not.

• Q2: 2009, Isabel González-Pueyo, Teaching Academic and Professional English Online, Peter Lang, page 169

  Besides the renowned Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org/), a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 150 languages and run by the Wikimedia foundation...

• Q3: 2009, Thanaruk Theeramunkong, Boonserm Kijsirikul, Nick Cercone, Tu Bao Ho, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 13th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2009 Bangkok, Thailand, April 27-30, 2009 Proceedings, Springer, page 275

  In this regard, we are planning to incorporate dynamic linguistic resources such as Wiktionary to complement the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia.

The requirements on the brand to be included are the following[2]:

• R1. It is used in at least three durably archived independent citations by different authors spanning a period of at least three years;
• R2. The citations do not identify the type of product to which the brand name applies, either by stating the class of product, or by stating some feature of the product known to be unique to the class of product;
• R3. The citations are not written by or about the manufacturer of the product, nor are they by or about a person, group, or agency associated with the manufacture or sale of the type of product;
• R4. The citations are not from a source which is about the type of product in general.

Which of the requirements R2-R4 do the provided citations of "Wiktionary" fail? Do all the citations fail the requirements or do some of the citations meet the requirements R2-R4?

If some of the citations meet the requirements, I would add more citations so that "Wiktionary" can be included. I do not claim to fully understand the requirements. --Dan Polansky 09:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uh, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products is not the policy. That vote failed, and was restructured as Wiktionary:Votes/2007-08/Brand names of products 2, which passed. --Yair rand (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I am sorry; I should have looked at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Brand names of products 2. Which of the requirements stated in that vote do the citations above or their sources fail? Do all the citations fail the requirements? --Dan Polansky 11:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, if we take Wiktionary to be "a brand name for a physical product" (such that Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Brand names applies), then the Wikimedia Foundation must fall somewhere in the set of "the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates", such that the 2008 and first 2009 citations are invalid. And the second 2009 quotation seems to be "stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent". So if — if — we apply the brand-name-for-a-physical-product requirements, then I don't think any of those quotations is valid. (If we don't apply those requirements, then I have no idea which rules do apply. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities?) —Ruakh_TALK 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you say that the citations fail to meet the following requirement: "The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship"? Or any other requirement?

I have broken down for me the requirements as follows:

There must be three independent citations spanning a period of at least three years, from durably archived sources, such that each of the following requirements holds of each citation.

• R1: The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship.
• R2: The source of the citation must not identify any such parties mentioned in the previous point.
• R3: The source of the citation must not indicate any legal protection of the brand name as a trademark.
• R4: The source of the citation must not be written by any person or group associated with the type of product.
• R5: The source of the citation must not be written about any person or group specifically associated with the product.
• R6: The source of the citation must not be written about the type of product in general.
• R7: The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised[inferred?], or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent.

The second citation seems to fail R7; I can find citations that hopefully meet R7 if this is the major problem. --Dan Polansky 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Wiktionary" is not a brand of a physical product, but I have assumed that the "physical" differentia is mainly irrelevant anyway; "Windows" by Microsoft would also come under that regulation regardless of whether it is a physical product. Formally, CFI would have to be amended, and "physical" would have to be removed, but I take WT:BRAND to apply to "Wiktionary", for the sake of this argument anyway. --Dan Polansky 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The first citation seems to fail R2. --Dan Polansky 11:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What about Q4: 'The term vibe is also defined in the Wiktionary as "The atmosphere or aura of a person ..."'[3]. Which requirement does it fail? Does "defined in the X" imply that X is a dictionary, leading to the failure of R7? --Dan Polansky 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, precisely. See [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you say that Q4 fails R7. From what specific text of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names does it follow? If a word is defined in X, how do you know that X is a dictionary rather than a book on a specific subject that also contains definitions, as many scholarly texts do? I am not convinced. Of course, the very name "Wiktionary" is suggestive of its being a dictionary, but that should not really count toward anything. And on the wording of R7: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies": what does it mean to identify a product? The product is the particular work, right? Does the author of the sentence mean "product type" ("dictionary") rather than "product" ("Wiktionary")?

See my response below. DAVilla 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What do you say about Q3, given above?

What do you say about Q6, given below? --Dan Polansky 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What about Q5, as vulnerable to R7 as Q4: "Wiktionary defines luck as, "Something that happens to someone by chance, a chance occurrence."[4]

More quotes of the sort of Q4 and Q5 can be found in Google books.

What about Q6: "If you were to build a viewer based on Wikipedia or Wiktionary and prevent users from interacting with WV, they would only be able to view the entry that came up based on the word they typed into a filed you provide for them on the layout."[5]

— This unsigned comment was added by Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) at 12:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC).Reply

Some of the criteria mentioned are very sound, especially R1, but, if this word fails RfV, then rules have to be improved. Another rule states that we accept all words, everybody seems to forget this other rule. Lmaltier 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added some quotations to Citations:Wiktionary. From what I can see, they could be vulnerable to R7, but I really wonder how the case that they fail R7 would be specifically argued. --Dan Polansky 11:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Q6 passes, I think. This cite might work, as it's not completely clear that it's referencing a dictionary, but the one above it probably doesn't pass R7. Q3 probably doesn't pass R1. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

How does does Q3 fail R1? The authors of the Q3 scholarly article are from School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Western Australia[6]. What has this to do with "R1: The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship"? --Dan Polansky 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

[unindent] I'm sure the wording could use some refinement, and although it was that wording that passed the vote, it may be useful for me to clarify the intent. By "identifying the product" one would be giving as much information about the product as is necessary to understand the quotation. So if Wiktionary were noted as a dictionary then the citation would almost certainly not count. (A counterexample might be something that refers to the wiki rather than dictionary aspect of Wiktionary without further explanation. "ABigCat.com is to Rosetta as Wiktionary is to Webster." I couldn't imagine any author using this in analogy, so the example is mostly theoretical. The Jonathan Stars quotation is good as it seems to not indicate either.) In my view, even though some of the newer quotations do not state the product type, they identify Wiktionary as a place where things are defined, which (unless I missed something) is all that's really necessary to understand the meaning. DAVilla 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let me ask specifically: which of the four quotations Q3-Q6 do pass the requirements, according to your reading of the requirements? (Q1 and Q2 are out, as they mention Wikimedia.) --Dan Polansky 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Q3 identifies Wiktionary as a "dynamic linguistic resource". Q5&6 identify Wiktionary as a place where words are defined. "An understanding of the author’s intent" could be gained without the example, by saying passively (with no subject) words are defined as such and such. In my view, only Q4 has any claim. It does not occur in a parenthetical or nonessential phrase, being used in fact to explain another idea. No appositive substitutes as a synonym, nor more generally does Jonathan Stars explain the term anywhere in the work. It's not a great citation since you really only have to understand that these webpages are interactive to get his point, plus you could guess at what Wiktionary is knowing the meaning of Wikipedia (the rules are not clear here), but arguably interactive webpage doesn't technically "identify the product" with any information that would indicate "its type and purpose". DAVilla 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Striking, as the discussion seems to be dead. No one seems to actively disagree with DAVilla's last comment. The discussion can certainly be revived in the future, should anyone wish to revive it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

¶ Does anyone want to verify a translation here? --Pilcrow 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply