Is Google Dictionary a valid definition reference (in particular in answers)?

Question

In my answer to this question, another user was adamant that Google is not a citable source and that that is a policy of ELU.

The link given as evidence for that was Is TFD a RTFM online source? - a footnote to an answer to a different question so I am not satisfied with that as an authoritative answer to this question.

---

_{Note that this and many other similar questions/answers were not just LMGTFY. The answer was the word (I didn't Google it to get it). The Google links are just convenient definitions of the word. This question is not about LMGTFY questions and answers. It is only about whether Google Dictionary is a valid reference.}

---

I have searched on Help and Meta and cannot find anything that explicitly says it is or isn't.

There is the list of recommended dictionaries but it is only a list of recommendations not an approved list where anything else is forbidden. Google isn't on that list but neither is Collins for example.

What's up with all these dictionary reference edits? comes closest but there is a disagreement of opinions there.

There is speculation about where Google gets their definitions: some suggest they get them from various other online dictionaries (from leeching the definition from the first dictionary link). This doesn't seem to be supported by the wikipedia article on Google Dictionary

Google Dictionary was an online dictionary service of Google, originating in its Google Translate service.

The Google Dictionary website was terminated on August 5, 2011 after part of its functionality was integrated into Google Search using the define: operator.

...the content now came from another Oxford dictionary, the Oxford American College Dictionary. As of 5 August 2011, Google Dictionary was discontinued as a separate service, although similar results have been incorporated into the Google search sidebar.

So it seems that Google have their own dictionary, copied from one or more other dictionaries perhaps but, if so, they undoubtedly have the intellectual rights to do so. They provide this as part of a search (much like searching for "the time now" shows the current time) rather than as a separate URL as they did before. There is of course no plagiarism on their part. They cite no references and don't need to (just like other dictionaries).

Personally, I see no reason that Google Dictionary (now incorporated into Google Search) shouldn't be cited as a reference. So long as the definition it gives is copied into the answer (as all such references should) then any volatility of Google's dictionary is hardly an issue (the definition at the time of writing was shown). The source of the definition was Google and was cited. I see no problem with that.

There is a potential problem with Google search links in that many users copy a lot of unnecessary junk in the URL but this question only relates to properly sanitised Google search links: e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=stack+exchange

So the question is in two parts:

1) Is there a policy on ELU that Google Dictionary is not acceptable for providing the definitions of words? (If so, please provide the link to where that is explicitly stated. Someone's opinion buried within a question on another subject on meta will not do.)

2) If not, should there be? (And why?)

---

Conclusion

I expect everyone who has an opinion has voted and the consensus is quite clear: Google dictionary is not to be referenced.

The down votes to the question are curious. Does that mean people feel it shouldn't have been asked or just that it was asked badly? I am glad it has been and I now know where ELU community stands on the question. I don't think it was clear before. People can say Google is not a citable source with a lot more confidence and authority now.

Answer 1

Meta posts and votes on them define policy, in that (insofar as Stack Exchange allows) the community decides how it should operate. Some aspects of ELU are mandated by the company; one such is the attribution policy.

In the absence of anything better, then the footnote on this answer with its upvotes is part of site policy.

However, I’ll state it explicitly so it can be voted upon.

[The attribution policy] does make for problems when answers simply reproduce the content Google supplies from a define query. Presumably Google have an agreement with their sources where they can omit any reference. I don't think we should endorse that, particularly when it's easy to provide cited references from original dictionary websites.

Google is a directory. They have recently taken to providing answers directly on their site, but do so without any attribution.

We would not accept a link provided by Google as an answer: an answer should be more than a link and should reference source material. Similarly, we would not accept a Google search link and text from the search results, which is arguably close to providing a dictionary search link and data from the dictionary results.

If this site were one where the questions lent themselves to Google’s calculator, we would not accept a bald figure as an answer: the method of calculation would have to be shown.

Consequently, no, we should not accept Google’s dictionary definitions at face value either. Google does not acknowledge its sources, despite simply reproducing content†; Stack Exchange policy does not allow unacknowledged material. The work is not Google’s: they have reproduced the work of others, and Stack Exchange policy is that that work should be acknowledged.

A side issue, but related, is that answers which reference Google definitions tend — often, but not always — to include only Google’s content. If there is anything which is original at all, it is very little. Stack Exchange answers are supposed to be complete, and are expected to show some originality of thought. Regurgitating Google’s summary of another site is short-changing the asker and providing a bad example to follow. The quality of answers generally goes down, and if saying “No Google” is a way to stem that progress [regress?] then to do so is useful.

As I said in my original footnote, it’s easy to provide cited references from original dictionary websites.

---

† This is easily demonstrated by using Google’s own search engine to find the real source of their text.

Answer 2

Don't cite Google as a dictionary.

---

Google has licensed two of the dictionaries from Oxford Languages for their search product:

• The Oxford Dictionary of English
• The New Oxford American Dictionary

These aren't bad dictionaries, mind you. The ODE is a large single-volume dictionary which gives very good coverage of Present-Day English, including many examples taken from the corpus Oxford used to assemble the dictionary. The NOAD is a version of this dictionary, not quite as good, which focuses on American English. The ODE and NOAD are not called by these names online; instead, they've been rebranded as Lexico (formerly Oxford Dictionaries, or Oxford Living Dictionaries).

Whatever you call them, it's confusing. The OED is a very different dictionary – a large multi-volume historical dictionary, not specifically focused on Present-Day English – but the acronym is very similar to ODE, so they're easily confused. And the "Oxford Dictionaries" name is likewise confusing, as the OED is the most well-known Oxford dictionary, but it isn't available at the Oxford Dictionaries website.

So it's a bit of a mess. But referring to these as the "Google dictionary" just adds to the confusion. Although Google has the license to present these search results without attribution, they haven't compiled their own dictionaries, and if you don't name the actual source, it's difficult for people to learn about the dictionaries themselves – their advantages and disadvantages, how they were compiled, what their purpose and coverage is, and so forth.

What's worse, Google doesn't return these results to all users. Many users on this site use Google in languages other than English, but the English dictionary results are not shown to all of these users. If someone cites the "Google dictionary" with a link to a Google search, the link simply won't work for many of the users on this site. That means the link is not a proper citation, and it should not be used on this site.

Even worse, imagine Google licensing another dictionary in the future. Apple did this with the Japanese language dictionaries included with its operating system a few years back, dumping one set of dictionaries and replacing them with another when it made financial sense to do so. Since Google doesn't name their sources, you can imagine this could turn out to be terribly confusing!

Linking to a Google search is just a bad idea. If you want to link to the ODE or NOAD, please link directly to the Oxford Dictionaries website, Lexico.com.

Answer 3

I think it should be at least as valid as the dictionary that it reproduces: oxforddictionaries.com (an ELU recommended dictionary) it appears.

If Google have been given the right to call it their own then it is not unattributed on any meaningful level (morally or legally) - it is attributed to Google as is their right. OED, for example, have a right to publish 'their' definitions because of intellectual property contracts between the company and its staff that produce them. Google has rights by a different route to the works of oxforddictionaries.com's staff. I see no difference.

Any other feelings about Google as evidence depends on the subject. This is specifically and solely about definitions of words in Google. The validity of Google for other references or evidence is irrelevant.

Answer 4

Yes. And no. In my opinion Google Dictionary is a citable source. However, this site requires that all sources be cited with an internet link. As ironic as that in and of itself may be, with regards to the credibility of google I have a link that OED UK emailed me personally upon inquiry. Turns out my suspicion was correct and Google Dictionary is one of the Oxford Dictionaries. It is a great one, which is under the control of nerds, and edited by Oxford. Google and Oxford are partners. Unfortunately we can't use it here because google doesn't appear to provide links to their dictionary directly. I suppose the search results link technically does however satisfy the requirement. I'm very disappointed by the rejection.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/licensing/google