How much should I trust Wiktionary?

Question

My first reference that I use for English words is Wiktionary. I primarily do so because it's a not-for-profit project, so I don't have to worry about it suddenly charging for subscriptions, or that it will have advertising that links to malware.

But recently, I received some comments saying that I shouldn't trust Wiktionary when it says some spellings are superior to other spellings:

I've argued with Wiktionay for years that it has no business declaring one spelling to be the alternative to another. They should use a heading that doesn't lend superiority to one form such as Spellings or Other spellings. Wiktionary entries vary as to how one word is given the "main" entry and others the "alternatives". Sometimes there's a Google Fight, sometimes it's first come first served, sometimes there's a small battle between who is right among British English and American English! Do not trust these Wiktionary labels!

and

Another piece of advice: Don't expect any dictionary to be prescriptive unless it's older than Webster's Third New World Dictionary. By this time all major English dictionaries published in Britain and USA had firmly chosen the path of descriptivism. That means they claim to describe how the language is used, and specifically do not tell people the correct way to use the language. For questions of usage you would do better to consult style guides, such as Strunk and White.

So now I'm wondering how much I should trust Wiktionary.

Currently, my thoughts are:

1. Wiktionary is a single source of information. As with any information source, if you really want to be sure, you'd want to check multiple, independent, sources.
2. Wiktionary theoretically has the same vulnerabilities as Wikipedia. These include people engaging in internet vandalism, people editing a wiki to push an agenda, people who are editing Wiktionary in good faith but who are biased, and lack of editorial oversight. However, as Wiktionary isn't as high-profile as Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is slightly more difficult to edit than Wikipedia, I don't think these are major problems.
3. Wiktionary sometimes incorporates information from out-dated public domain sources.
4. Wiktionary provides information that a dictionary shouldn't be providing.

With regards to point 4, what information does Wiktionary provide that a dictionary shouldn't provide? Is it merely being prescriptivist in the spelling of a word, or are there other ways it's providing information it shouldn't? For example, should I use Wiktionary to decide whether talking about "a Japanese" rather than "a Japanese person" is offensive?

Answer 1

---warning: this is now a partially obsolete answer. The Oxforddictionaries.com site doesn't exist anymore, redirecting to a different site and I'm no longer up to date with what is and what isn't a good dictionary --

---

From my personal experience, Oxford Dictionaries has became my "first reference" - Wiktionary may have most words, but their entry quality often varies a lot, and many have very limited range of listed meanings. Meanwhile, Oxford Dictionaries seems to go for depth instead of breadth; each entry delves into a large number of meanings - I had quite a few questions on EL&U closed as "General Reference" because I'd check Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster and such, while only oxforddictionaries.com contained an entry for the meaning I was looking for.¹⁾

Still, first Oxford Dictionaries is updated slower than Wiktionary; it may be "behind the times" concerning some entries. So, if you have doubts about Oxford Dictionaries entry, feel free to:

• Check Wiktionary
• Check Wiktionary's "History" page for given entry and find when the given meaning was added. If it was added recently, you may trust it's too new for Oxford Dictionaries.
• Check Urban Dictionary. It's completely unreliable but the bleeding edge of slang that doesn't make its way into more "respectable" dictionaries for years yet.

In essence, going from most reliable and thorough and narrow to most unreliable, shallow and broad; Wiktionary is a step in the middle of that route and a good choice if it's to be your one-stop resource, but not the best if you actually want to research given word.

^{1) example: Wiktionary, along with a bunch of others I checked did not have the meaning of grunt as mechanical power, especially in a motor vehicle.}

Answer 2

Being an administrator on Wiktionary, my answer may be slightly biased.

1) Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary and each Wiktionary site attempts to translate words from all known languages into one single language (e.g., en.wikt for all languages into English). This is one advantage over OED or Webster.

2) Wiktionary (or volunteers who work on the website) strives to be descriptive. However, because we are all biased in one way or another, sometimes prescriptive information gets included in the dictionary. Unfortunately, because it is editable by every man and their dog on the Internet, sometimes these flaws get overlooked.

3) One may consider Wiktionary as a bridge between Urban Dictionary and more authoritative dictionaries like Oxford. As long as a term passes the CFI, it may be included provided references are given for the term. This is often at the discretion of administrators such as myself and if a term is disputed, it gets put on RFD or RFV to be checked and dealt with accordingly. There are also issues such as the offensiveness of certain terms, which are often dealt with on Tea room. This IS one of the best things about Wiktionary. Everything is open for discussion.

I believe that in order to understand how Wiktionary works, one needs to tread its waters by contributing to it and engaging oneself in active discussions.

Just a note to the other contributors to ELL, if you find a term is missing an entry or a definition. You are welcome to add it, instead of complaining about it being absent. Wiktionary is a wiki and I am sure by now, most people would be familiar with the concept. This is how I started. I made mistakes along the way, but be sensible and be ready to learn and you will go a long way.

There are some extremely talented people on the website, some fluent in a dozen languages. Maybe you will be one of them too.

Answer 3

• When I want to know what modern people use, I do Google searches, including News searches and Books searches.
• When I want to know what people who like to edit dictionaries as a hobby think, I use Wiktionary.
• When I want to know what a respected British dictionary has to say, I consult my OED Microprint.
• When I want to know what a respected American dictionary has to say, I consult my Webster's 3rd.
• When I want to know what a respected Australian dictionary has to say, I consult my Macquarie's.

• When I want to know what self-styled experts think, I go to the library and look in style guides like Strunk & White (I don't want to actually own one).

• When I want to learn all I can about a word or phrase, I use all of these resources and have been known to visit multiple libraries and bookshops to find as many different dictionaries and other references as possible.

I trust some of these sources and take some with a grain of salt, but I don't take any single one as an absolute and incontestable authority.

---

• When I want to give back to the community I edit Wiktionary and participate on english.stackexchange.com and ell.stackexchange.com

Answer 4

Trust No One ⁽¹⁾. It's the only scientific approach.

• There's no silver bullet. Dictionaries are written by people. People make mistakes;
• As a language learner, it is well possible that you simply misunderstand the meaning they wanted to convey;
• Languages evolve. What was correct yesterday is not necessarily correct today. Remember, five years ago it was grammatical to write e-mail. Today, email is preferred. It is well possible that a single source is not updated;
• Using various sources not only helps learning different opinions. It also makes you familiar with different methods of explanation, a good asset by itself.

As per #4, the answer is the same. Some sources may not simply contain sufficient information about whether or not a certain word is offensive in every geographic area or logical context.

---

⁽¹⁾ As a nice exception, you may always trust me. :)

Answer 5

Like Wikipedia, the problem with Wiktionary is its sheer importance; it's the largest single repository. It is not well structured. Like every dictionary, it is demonstrably biased. It is extensively cited by linguistic researchers; this practice is discouraged by the community as it does not claim or attempt to be authoritative. YMMV, you're just going to have to make a decision whether it fits your goals and specs.