Wiktionary

Definition and stakes

Henry William Carless Davis,  EB1911

“ X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia; and our disclaimer" and not "A and B in the Wiktionary, X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia, and our disclaimer". No, that's no always necessary, but sometimes—like "Fashion"—it absolutely is: the Wiktionary entry hits all the bases but the Wikipedia articles for the EB topic are spread all over. ”
Source: Wikisource

Bob Burkhardt

“ I will reply at the PSM project talk page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC) re: {{Collier's}} and similar Is there a reason why such dictionary templates link to Wikipedia but not to Wiktionary? - Amgine (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. The only reason I can see against it is infrequency of use, where for infrequent situations the multi-purpose other_projects can serve. But given an encyclopedia like EB11 tries to be a dictionary, a specialized Wiktionary link would be useful frequently enough to make sense in {{EB1911}}.
”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Adam Smith Adam Smith,  Scriptorium/Archives/2008-08

“ Adding links to Wikipedia or to Wiktionary for rare or overtly technical terms and subjects gives depth to the work they are reading. - Mtmelendez 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But back to the point: I can understand that in case of specialized texts (technical ones, medical ones etc.) there are many words that are not common. The question is although: is Wikisource a general encyclopaedia or something else. I guess if somebody is reading here a specialized text on a medical problem so he or she will first have read some general articles about the matter in the wikipedia or somewhere else.
”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature