Should Wiktionary require that all its information artifacts are sourced from reliable sources?: Revision history

10 October 2023

• curprev 10:0110:01, 10 October 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 7,864 bytes +53‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 09:5909:59, 10 October 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 7,811 bytes +616‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 07:3507:35, 10 October 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 7,195 bytes +469‎ No edit summary undo

24 August 2023

• curprev 13:4613:46, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 6,726 bytes +30‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 13:3813:38, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 6,696 bytes +263‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:4712:47, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 6,433 bytes +2,222‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:2611:26, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 4,211 bytes −7‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:2211:22, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 4,218 bytes +276‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:2011:20, 24 August 2023‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 3,942 bytes +3,942‎ New resource with "{{Original research}} The wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion (CFI) of the English Wiktionary requires definitions of English entries to be substantiated by quotations of use, thus allowing original research into definitions and sense structures. Should it instead require that definitions and other artifacts are sourced from authoritative reliable sources such as dictionary? == Wiktionary should require that all its information artifacts are sourced from reliabl..."