Editing Wiktionary (section)

== Critical reception ==
{{Update|inaccurate=yes|section|date=May 2013}}

Critical reception of Wiktionary has been mixed. In 2006, [[Jill Lepore]] wrote in the article "Noah's Ark" for ''[[The New Yorker]],''{{efn|The full article is not available on-line.{{sfn|Lepore|2006}}}}

<blockquote>There's no show of hands at ''Wiktionary''. There's not even an editorial staff. "Be your own lexicographer!", might be ''Wiktionary's'' motto. Who needs experts? Why pay good money for a dictionary written by lexicographers when we could cobble one together ourselves?

''Wiktionary'' isn't so much [[Republican Party (United States)|republican]] or [[Democratic Party (United States)|democratic]] as [[Maoism|Maoist]]. And it's only as good as the [[Public domain#Expiration of copyright|copyright-expired]] books from which it pilfers.</blockquote>

[[Keir Graff]]'s review for ''[[Booklist]]'' was less critical:

<blockquote>Is there a place for Wiktionary? Undoubtedly. The industry and enthusiasm of its many creators are proof that there's a market. And it's wonderful to have another strong source to use when searching the odd terms that pop up in today's fast-changing world and the online environment. But as with so many Web sources (including this column), it's best used by sophisticated users in conjunction with more reputable sources.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}</blockquote>

References in other publications are fleeting and part of larger discussions of Wikipedia, not progressing beyond a definition, although David Brooks in ''[[The Telegraph (Nashua)|The Nashua Telegraph]]'' described it as "wild and woolly".<ref>David Brooks, "Online, interactive encyclopedia not just for geeks anymore, because everyone seems to need it now, more than ever!" ''The Nashua Telegraph'' (August 4, 2004)</ref> One of the impediments to independent coverage of Wiktionary is the continuing confusion that it is merely an extension of Wikipedia.{{efn|In this citation, the author refers to Wiktionary as part of the Wikipedia site: {{Cite news |last=Adapted from an article by Naomi DeTullio |date=2006 |title=Wikis for Librarians |page=15 |work=NETLS News #142 |publisher=Northeast Texas Library System |format=PDF newsletter |url=http://www.netls.org/NewContent/NewsAndPictures/NEWSLETTERS/NEWS2006/142final.pdf |access-date=April 21, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605203652/http://www.netls.org/NewContent/NewsAndPictures/NEWSLETTERS/NEWS2006/142final.pdf |archive-date=June 5, 2007}}
}}

The measure of correctness of the inflections for a subset of the Polish words in the English Wiktionary showed that this grammatical data is very stable (a study showed that only 131 out of 4,748 Polish words have had their inflection data corrected).{{sfn|Kurmas|2010}}

{{As of|2016}}, Wiktionary has seen growing use in [[Academy|academia]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Sascha|Müller-Spitzer|2016|page=348}}</ref>