ext_157794 ([identity profile] lacrimawanders.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] snarp 2010-03-14 04:38 pm (UTC)

(I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED FOR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE TOPIC)

I think edict's kind of a dump. It's kind of a pre-wiki dump, managed by far fewer people (which, yes, it is smaller/more specialized), and less strictly moderated. I think one of the big problems is just what you said - definitions are usually (usually) technically accurate, but sometimes not made clearly enough dissimilar from one another. See: 'excited' vs. 'excited' (sexually), as learned through edict+j-go homework.

The recent formatting change makes it nice because everything is there, like a good dictionary, but not nice because it makes it much harder to copy/paste, like a bad online resource.

The short: edict is not quite accurate enough for me to use every day/without verification from a second source (which may be easily obtainable because it's online and you can google-search for whatever word you're looking at). It's kind of like wiki's less accurate cousin, and while I'll use it for reference, if I'm doing anything serious I'm probably going to pull out my heavy-duty paper dictionaries.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org