Should Wiktionary use images?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Some people think Wiktionary should not use images. Are they right?

Related questions: Are definitions a necessary or vital part of empirical sciences? What is the role of definitions in children vocabulary acquisition?

Wiktionary should use images

Arguments for

• Pro For many words, it is the visual examples of the referents that bind the words to their meaning. Indeed, children do not learn most words from definitions. For some words, images greatly help to get an idea, e.g. bird species names; one can also show an image for, say, being on top of.
  • Objection Since blind people also acquire language, visuals do not seem necessary for word learning.
    • Objection Good point. However, one would have to clarify to what extent blind people effectively learn words for, say, birds.
      • Objection One cannot probably use images to recognize birds on species level anyway; one is much better served by a corresponding encyclopedia entry.
• Pro Since Merriam-Webster uses images in some of its entries, e.g. dog, it is probably a good idea. Inonclusive yet suggestive.
• Pro Lingea's Slovní současné češtiny (Dictionary of Contemporary Czech) uses images, even for basic nouns for animals.. Inconclusive yet suggestive.
• Pro Duden online does have an image in the Mops entry. Inconclusive, yet suggestive.

Arguments against

• Con Dictionaries usually do not use images, e.g. Merriam-Webster online or Duden.
  • Objection That is suggestive but not conclusive. One may choose to do things differently from what tradition dictates if one finds good reason for doing so.
  • Objection While most entries in Merriam-Webster online do not have images, some do, e.g. dog. Thus, even if one follows the model of Merriam-Webster online, one would not exclude images from all entries.
• Con For most words, images have no use. For those words where images do have use, the images can be found in the corresponding Wikipedia article or in Commons, one link away from the dictionary entry. By banning images, one gets rid of the regulation problems such as whether to allow erotic images, whether to allow etymology-related images, etc. One also somewhat reduces page loading times.
  • Objection Some online dictionaries do use images here and there, although, granted, this is rare. Some print dictionaries use images a lot.
  • Objection Commons may lack the right category for the word in question.
  • Objection Better have the image directly in the dictionary entry than having to click to other projects and wait for the pages loading.
• Con Expanding on the above, images are a visual distraction: they are what catches the eye. But it is verbal definitions that properly provide conceptual information, not images, and ideally, it is them to which the attention should be driven. Images are like ice cream or sweets for a child who should better eat meat, eggs and vegetables.
  • Objection It is questionable that a conceptual dictionary definition for, say, a bird species is a definition proper. Since, the bird is a natural kind and it has many more defining properties/differentia than captured in a dictionary definition. From a logical standpoint, a definition proper would pick the same species across possible worlds. One would think an image does much better job of pointing to the species.
  • Objection A good point. However, one may pick less eye-catching images such as drawings rather than color photographs, to make the images more conceptual, as it were.
  • Objection One can have a section for images collapsed by default. Thus, one has to actively succumb to images by a mouse click to uncollapse the section.
•  Comment The picture dictionary project in the English Wiktionary, e.g. in wikt: animal and wikt: color, looks rather disruptive or distractive, taking too much space. Admittedly, that is not about pictures in general to illustrate individual senses but rather a warning about how badly a picture support can turn out.
  • Objection Some users may like that format.
    • Objection Needs and preferences of different users need to be balanced. Taking into account preferences of possibly only a small portion of dictionary users seems like a bad idea.

Further reading

• The usefulness of graphic illustrations in online dictionaries, cambridge.org
• Orbis Pictus, wikipedia.org
• Why don't dictionaries have pictures?, quora.com
• Wiktionary:cs: Diskuse k Wikislovníku:Formát hesla#Obrázky (in Czech)