User:Purplebackpack89
| Wiktionary:Babel | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
| Search user languages or scripts | |||||||||
Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see purple, backpack, 89.
I'm Purplebackpack89. Usually I edit English Wikipedia, but sometimes I edit here as well
As you can see, I have created over 100 pages here, which constitutes the bulk of my contributions. I also edit RfD from time to time, generally taking a view that definitions should be preserved. I believe CFI should be a guideline instead of policy. I believe that migration or merging of templates is generally a bad idea. I believe that Wiktionary should adopt policies more consistent with those on Wikipedia. I also believe admins need to be more open about why they do the things they do, and held accountable for being disruptive.
From nonsecure locations, I occasionally use User:Purplebackpackonthetrail as a legitimate alternate account.
Fundamental theorem of Wiktionary
[edit]I am worried that Wiktionary is losing ground relative to comparable sites: readers and editors are substituting away from Wiktionary
Anyone can edit
[edit]Yes, anyone can edit. Not just a select few guardians, ANYONE
Inclusion
[edit]I believe that Wiktionary should be inclusionist, for the following two reasons.
- We have near-infinite server space, rather than the 1000 or so printed pages of a dictionary
- Other dictionaries have English-language entries we do not; editors who want those entries will go to those dictionaries and never again use ours.
The counter-argument to inclusionism is sum-of-parts, which is (mistakenly) policy. The main underpinning of sum-of-parts is "everybody knows what that means". In addition to the arguments about space and lemmings above, I would say:
- Does everybody really know what that means? Some words are ambiguous; some people are dumb. (This argument can also be used for translation targets)
- That argument can be easily reduced to absurdity: if everybody knows what a BE 1500 word is, does it get tossed?
Note that this is primarily a critique of SOP, it is not a critique of attestation, which I am fully OK with.
I fundamentally believe that spending so much time and effort deleting entries DOESN'T BUILD A DICTIONARY.
Ease of editing
[edit]Wiktionary is very confusing to edit. In particular, Wiktionary uses a lot of templates (too many if you ask me). Templates also are migrated and merged frequently (most have been migrated or merged multiple times in the course of me being here). I believe that confusion could be alleviated with the following measures:
- Templates should be migrated and changed only exceedingly sparingly, as template migrations confuse editors.
- Redirects should be left behind
- Redundancies should be allowed, if some editors are familiar with using a template, but others want to move or merge it.
- Categories should not use boilers.
- People shouldn't have to edit a module every time they want to create or recategorize a category
The beliefs I have on inclusionism and ease of editing, when taken as a whole, should explain all or almost all the positions I take in discussions. If you have questions about the Purplebackpack fundamental theorem, direct them to my talk page.
Wiktionary vs Wikipedia
[edit]There seems to be a perverse pride here in NOT being Wikipedia, with a corollary in being resistant to having policies similar to Wikipedia (One of the more ridiculous examples is when people voted down enaction of a no-personal-attacks policy) and another corollary in insisting that the line between dictionary and encyclopedia is completely rigid.
Wikipedia policies generally were enacted for good reasons and with way more input than could ever be mustered here. If Wiktionary's policies and guidelines are to differ, there'd better be a pretty good reason why. "We're not Wikipedia" isn't a good enough of a reason.
Furthermore, the idea that there is some bright, rigid line between what is a dictionary definition and what is an encyclopedia article is fantasy. There isn't...in a number of important ways, a dictionary definition is just a really short encyclopedia article, with a disproportionate emphasis on things like etymology and usage.
As such, simply stating "not dictionary material" or "encyclopedic" should not be considered rationale for deletion or removal of content, unless additional context is provided as to WHY something is encyclopedic or not dictionary material.
Reform RFV
[edit]The durable citations requirement is outmoded. It's preventing us from having loads of words from the last 10 years or so, because they have hundreds or thousands of online citations but less than three durable citations. Loosen RFV!
Templates I might need
[edit]#*{{quote-book|title=| page=| url=| author=| year=| passage=}}