The following are sources that allow anyone to add dictionary and/or encyclopedia entries and which carry significantly large vocabularies.
The ratings are on a 1-to-5 scale, indicating how useful these sources appear to be for lexicography, based on our analyst’s opinion of the following:
· consistency of format
· quality of content
· quantity of entries
Rating |
Source |
Comments |
|
Large vocabulary, based on 1913 Websters, not as well supported since
2003 but still accessible; regex searchable |
|
|
By Farlex; strong in UK-English; basic parts of speech labeled on
most entries; lots of dupe entries; RSS feed available |
|
|
Very complete coverage; good interface for user submissions; limited
access for free, licensable for higher volume use |
|
|
Has audible pronunciations instead of definitions; after free sign-up, can add your own words and upload pronunciations too |
|
|
Based largely on Wikipedia, but increasingly supplemented by other
contributions; very consistent format; Semantic Web |
|
|
Steady flow of new words, many UK-English; allows anonymous contributions
of headwords; format is readily parsable |
|
|
UK-based dictionary lets you submit a word and URL and they will track usage stats on that word |
|
|
If a headword does not exist yet you can “own” its definition,
otherwise you can just add supplementary info; Semantic Web |
|
|
Very complete coverage of slang; UK-biased, many dupes |
|
|
Varying formats across entries, not parsable in a consistent way |
|
|
Consistent format, strong monitoring and curation |
|
|
Web 2.0 type site; allows you to tag, list, and comment on existing
words; offers WordPress, Twitter, Androids apps/plugins |
To submit a new source to the list, please send its URL to admin@communitysemantics.net
©2009,2010
CommunitySemantics.Net, All Rights Reserved.