Timeline for Is Google Dictionary a valid definition reference (in particular in answers)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2022 at 1:44 | comment | added | John Lawler | The phonemic notation used in English Wikipedia is now quite reliable, though it tends to be more American than British. It's much better than the pronunciation in the OED. | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 10:02 | answer | added | user28567 | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 1:23 | answer | added | Jesse Ivy | timeline score: -6 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 22, 2015 at 5:19 | comment | added | Roaring Fish | Citable is one thing; valid is another, and this parallels the whole Wikipedia thing in academic writing. Only primary sources are citable, and neither a Google definition nor Wikipedia is a primary source and hence are not citable. They are, however, as valid (in the sense of being trustworthy) as the sources they use. | |
| Aug 13, 2015 at 15:22 | history | edited | Avon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 488 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2015 at 15:11 | vote | accept | Avon | ||
| Aug 12, 2015 at 10:27 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | Just yesterday I edited an answer in which the answerer seemed to be quoting a dictionary (or two) for two listed definitions, but didn't provide any credit or link at all. A Google search for the quoted wording yielded one match to Dictionary.com and one match to Free Dictionary, but closer inspection of those two matches revealed that both definitions were actually from Collins Dictionary. In my view, the appropriate links were to Collins, so that's the source I linked to. It doesn't make sense to me to cite a content aggregator when you can cite an original source instead. | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 20:59 | answer | added | Avon | timeline score: -4 | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 20:16 | comment | added | Avon | @TimLymington Google obviously do have a dictionary (cached - like all searches only a lot more static). Google and its dictionary are not the same thing. That they bought it off someone else without exclusive rights seems to be true but it is not withstanding of the fact that they do have a dictionary. If they are quoting a "a properly researched, independent dictionary" as their own (with the permission of that dictionary) then... what is the difference? I don't think its dictionary should be a special case. | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 19:49 | answer | added | Andrew LeachMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 19:22 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | You are still eliding 'Google' and 'Google dictionary', which appears to have caused much of the confusion in the original question. Far too often, alas, we get posts saying "'if not then that' [as in your comment] gets 20000 hits on Google, so it must be a recognised phrase; what does it mean?". For that reason Google itself is not citable here as any sort of authority. Google Dictionary can be quoted for what it may be worth: not as much as a properly researched, independent dictionary but more than a random individual's view. And why should it be a special case? | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 17:44 | comment | added | Avon | @TimLymington I don't think it is a dupe because this is specifically about Google: whether Google is a special case for whatever reason. If not then that question does provide a general answer. Do I take it from this that you think Google Dictionary isn't a special case? | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | Realted (possible dupe): meta.english.stackexchange.com/q/2267/8019. | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | Mitch | There's no approved/forbidden list. There is more vs less respected. Urban Dictionary has a lot of crap in it but sometimes has some good suggestions for slang that don't exist anywhere else. TFD is quick and easy and sources a lot of dictionaries including wiktionary which is still in its infancy. OED, best in the world, still doesn't give every nuance. Google dictionary I'm sure is just fine; everything is up for discussion. | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 15:51 | history | asked | Avon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |