Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essay on editing Wikipedia
This is anessay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community.
This page in a nutshell: The dictionary is probably a better source than you are.

Lexicology (fromAncient Greek λεξικός, romanized as lexikós, “of words”) is the branch oflinguistics that studieswords, the relations between words (e.g.semantic relations), and the whole lexicon.

Lexicography is divided into two related disciplines: practical and theoretical. Practical lexicography is the art orcraft of compiling, writing and editingdictionaries. Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly study of the relationships within thelexicon (vocabulary) of alanguage as well as dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries. This is sometimes referred to as metalexicography.

Whenedit wars occur over thelead paragraph of acontroversial topic, people may turn to moreNPOV sources, like thedictionary. The dictionary is one source among many that is generally considered more authoritative than personal opinion.

Sometimes, for complex topics likehomophobia,marriage, ortruth, the dictionary seems inadequate. Wikipedians can and do argue over whether the definition is accurate, or which sense of a word is prevalent in mainstream usage. You may not like the dictionary definition, but if it is areputable dictionary, it generally carries more weight on Wikipedia than your personal opinion. On average, you can't make it disappear from the article simply by claiming that "it is a bad definition" based on your (explicitly or implicitly asserted) status as an expert on the writing of dictionaries. This is becauseyou are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer.

Let’s face it, you are probably not trained in lexicology or lexicography. You may have opinions aboutsemantics (how words are defined or used within alexicon), or how you would have written the dictionary, but your opinion does not countervail the efforts of trained lexicographers.

What to do

[edit]

When faced with a dictionary definition that you disagree with, your alternatives are limited; you can either find a better dictionary with a better definition, or you can citereputable sources that discuss the changing meaning of a given word. What you cannot do is discount the definition by claiming to know a lot about words and dictionary writing.You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer.Even if you are, youstill need to cite sources.

Arguments against using the dictionary definition in the lead paragraph

[edit]

Not all Wikipedians agree with these sentiments. Several arguments are as follows:

  • Modern dictionaries are likely to be in copyright, and a definition may or may not be acceptablefair use (Wikipedia's guideline onnon-free content states that "briefquotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"). Older, public-domain dictionaries may have anachronisms or outdated definitions.
  • Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (seeWP:NOT), some editors think that using dictionary definitions to start an article makes it sound more like a high school essay than a reputable encyclopedia.Stylistic opinions count in Wikipedia, so this is a legitimate point that should not be dismissed lightly.
  • Dictionary definitions, though accurate, often do not convey the full connotations and context of the use of a word. The large space we dedicate to each article allows us to explore these details. While a dictionary definition may be an appropriate component of a lead paragraph, it is rarely a sufficient exposition of the subject.
  • Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place.Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition oftruthiness than Webster's.
  • Original sources may have a more nuanced and in-depth treatment of definitions; for example,Plato'sRepublic and other philosophic inquiries into the meaning ofjustice may occasionally outweigh dictionary citations. Then again, Plato is a published source, and you are probably not Plato.

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer&oldid=1303449061"
Category:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp