Wikipedia talk:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer

Initial comments
I would have thought that this article itself crosses into the never-land of what Wikipedia is not, but it could be that the definition of essay has evolved and thus I'm living in a mind-space at odds with current conceptions, or being new to the Wiki I'm naturally unfamiliar with the flavor of this diverse salad of discourse which is Wiki-ness. Be that as it may, I'm not entirely sure whether the point of the article is to battle against the politically correct belief that all our opinions are equally valid, regardless of education, training, and experience, and therefore some of us should try reading a little before opening our big fat mouths; or, if the point is to suggest, rather more simply, that disputes over the meanings of terms integral to an edit war (i.e.: marriage, homophobia) are perhaps best resolved by resorting to authoritative sources such as dictionaries and the like. The title of the article, of course, is pleasently provocative, in rather a bookish way, and I'm curious to see where this is leading. Cryptonymius 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This essay was conceived following my engagement in several edit wars where wikipedians explicitly asserted their opinions about word meaning as having more weight than reputable dictionaries. I think there are several aims achieved by this essay. First, in the simplest sense, it provides the editorial community with a general forum to resolve the issue of to what extent a dicdef ought to be featured (or even included) in the WP:LEAD. Second, it asserts the opinion that cited sources are not refuted (and therefore automatically eliminated) by unsourced assertions like "I don't like that definition" or "I would have made a different definition if I had written Websters." Third, it reminds us that, indeed, most of us (self included) are generally not esteemed polymaths capable of offering authoritative unsourced punditry on all manner of subjects. Another title could have been Wikipedia: You are not a source but I like this title better. MPS 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's say for arguement's sake that you did write Websters, and made major contributions to the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. At what point does your opinion become a valid citation? When your research has been published by Oxford University Press? I'm asking this because it occurs to me that perhaps the title of the essay might be better rendered as, You are probably not a lexicologist or lexicographer, and even if you are it's irrelevant until you've been published. Cryptonymius 07:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The even if you are is sort of the punchline to the essay. IMHO: No truly valuable essay is complete without allowing for the reader to connect some dots on her/his own.
 * Examples:
 * Jamaican Bobsled Team clause
 * No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
 * The Pope is Catholic

Yes, lexicologists, definitely need to cite thmeselves. Maybe we should give some examples of famous lexicologists (Shakespeare, Johnson, Webster) and how they have to cite themselves. MPS 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, well I wasn't thinking about dramatic structure, so allowing for a punchline might be a good idea. Cryptonymius 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MPS, this is just a vote of support for this essay. if anyone disagrees with it, then it should be my favorite definition of homophobia and pejorative and marriage and whatever that goes into the lead intro of any controversial article. my opinion of the definitions of these terms is just as authorative as any other non-lexographer. why shouldn't it be my personal opinion? i'm NPOV. r b-j 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't this just another way of saying that if you are not an authority, then your opinion is just as lacking as the opinion of anyone else who is not an authority? Cryptonymius 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MPS, why isn't the punch line of this essay, "Even if you are, you still need to cite sources, and wp:nor probably applies"? Sdsds 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem...
Some people, including some WP editors, are lexicologists, lexicographers, etymologists, linguists, or some other relevant expert. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

whether quoting dictionary entry possibly illegal
A [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer&diff=next&oldid=634419732 recent edit] to this essay supports quoting a copyrighted definition. Fair use is relative partly to the length of the original. Although it's common in many media to quote entire definitions, I'm not sure that the original against which fair use would be judged wouldn't be the entry, rather than the whole dictionary. For example, quoting an entire song even though you got it from a songbook of many songs would often be a violation, although that might be because every song in the book was originally separately copyrighted, not usually the case with dictionary entries. Entries, especially in the more authoritative dictionaries, typically include more than definitions, so maybe there's no legal problem with copying only definitions, and only in a few cases. I'm just raising the legal question in the hope that someone else can answer it and edit accordingly or decide that no editing is needed. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't really agree
The use of terms in literature is often markedly different from dictionary definitions... and wikipedia often cars about the literatures rather than a dictionary. Obviously to avoid interminable conversaion deference must be paid to literature, but it's fairly easy to be more familiar with the use of terminology within a specific literature than most lexicographers. Talpedia (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)