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.
I am worried that Wiktionary is losing ground relative to comparable sites: readers and editors are substituting away from Wiktionary
I believe that Wiktionary should be inclusionist, for the following two reasons.
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:
Note that this is primarily a critique of SOP, it is not a critique of attestation, which I am fully OK with.
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 (some 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:
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.
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!
#*{{quote-book|title=| page=| url=| author=| year=| passage=}}