It appears to me that the quotation "Work in the open-source software community or contribute to wikipedias on your favourite subjects." could be better ascribed to the second meaning - A version of this encyclopedia in a particular language. I don't know the context of this sentence (if it is a sentence), but the term wikipedia is used in plural so it seems only logical. Regards, Biblbroks 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Rfv-sense: transitive. The quotes provided are only for the intransitive sense. DCDuringTALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, sense removed. More or less. The distinction between the senses wasn't really "transitive" vs. "intransitive", but rather "editing" vs. "consulting". I did find one cite where it meant "editing", and I've put that on the citations page; but funnily enough, it's intransitive. (And it's actually kind of using "Wikipediaing" as a noun.) —RuakhTALK 02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
2010 Edmund Morris, Colonel Roosevelt (New York: Random House, 2010), 567:
Flora Whitney died in 1986, inevitably wikipeded as a "wealthy socialite."
As it is included in a major biography of a major personage by a major author, in print, I figured it should make it onto Wiktionary. However, I must admit that though I love etymology and lexicography as a layman, grammar etc. befuddles me, so please feel free to fix my addition. Tuckerresearch 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed this because wikipeded isn't an inflection of this verb, i.e. it's not the same word. You might want to consider adding a new entry at wikipeded, but since it only seems to occur in the one book I doubt it would meet our WT:CFI criteria. Equinox◑ 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It's another meaning and another possible past-tense form of "to wikipedia" - how is that "not the same word"? Tuckerresearch 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Explain how this is a past tense of Wikipedia? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
See the quotation above. As I said, another meaning. I defer to regular Wiktionarians, but I thought it should go somewhere in Wiktionary. I would've thought you guys were descriptive, not prescriptive. Tuckerresearch 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Proper noun entry: Wikipedia (plural Wikipedias). Isn't the example in that section a contradiction ("wikipedias" vs. "Wikipedias"): "Work in the open-source software community or contribute to wikipedias on your favourite subjects."? --Mortense 17:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good observation. It might go to the Noun entry - with some changes regarding capital letter. Regards, --Biblbroks 17:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
RFD proper noun sense: An open-content online encyclopedia conglomerate.
I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, how it would differ from the first sense. DAVilla 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I wholly agree; the wording as at best ambiguous and it seems to just mean the same as the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually the first sense only refers to the sense of Wikipedia solely as an encyclopedia, afaict. The sense i added was an attempt to address that somewhat newly apprehended meaning of the term Wikipedia - as not merely an encyclopedia - but as a project to build one and all that surrounds it. I understand that the wording is not most fortunate, and it could be improved of course. Perhaps it could be useful if the history regarding this edit of mine and my talk page regarding this entry, is examined. Maybe even my contribution at article_in_question's discussion page could help to illustrate my point. What i am trying to state is that it appears that User:EncycloPetey didn't object to my second addition of the third sense, and that then perhaps this change was somewhat understood and therefore accepted. Regards, --Biblbroks 08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)