Use other source for dictionary (e.g. wiktionary)?

ProfessorTuring

Value7609 yeah and that definition seems super sexist to say women are literally defined by doing housework. Would be interesting to have more sources or be able to pick from a list to feed into the search engine.

MomentumBuffet

I think it would be a great solution to allow users to pick their own dictionary source (I think ProfessorTuring is suggesting that as well). I personally prefer Merriam Webster, DDG uses Wordnik. But overall I think that the current source is really not that good. I do like that it suggests synonyms

Vlad

We are planning to do this!

Augudev

When searching for "ADHD", Kagi spits out a harmful & misinformative definition from Words API that needlessly claims ADHD occurs mostly in boys.

This is an untrue stereotype that misinforms parents, preventing girls from receiving needed psychological attention.

Additionally, the usage of the word 'boys' promotes the stereotype that ADHD exists only in children. This is untrue, I am a man with ADHD, we do not grow out of it.

Here is a clear scientific reference backing up my claim about gender: https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00023210-200620020-00003

While I understand this definition comes from Words API, I believe it's pertinent that Kagi it out quickly with them because the definition is egregious.

Thank you
Family duo & Ultimate member that loves Kagi & Orion

Vlad

Augudev Thanks, time to look for another word definitions provider.

carl

Additionally, the usage of the word 'boys' promotes the stereotype that ADHD exists only in children. This is untrue, I am a man with ADHD, we do not grow out of it.

But you were a boy once if you are a man. It makes sense that they talk about the age when a condition appears, if it is chronic.

As for word definition APIs, is there any comparison of different offerings? As to not diminish quality in other areas when increasing quality for medical words. Maybe it's even possible to use different APIs for different categories/fields, in order to get the highest quality?

youngji22

In that case, it would have been correct to say "male" or "men" instead as it is genetic (and not limited to childhood or adulthood). Either way, the definition is incorrect.

guissmo

The definition widget favors interpreting wasp to be the White AngloSaxon Protestant as opposed to the insect.

I think it would be more useful to most people to favor talking about the insect first.

Not sure if it’s too opinionated to change the algorithm for this. But I definitely think it will be more useful for most people in the US, and almost all people outside the US.

A user searches wasp. The user gets a definition of the insect wasp.

Colonial

I also ran into this issue. For the time being, I created a custom bang that defers to Wiktionary - most of the time this will drop you right on the page (e.g. !define wasp will take you to the page for wasp, rather than going to search results.)

Jesal

worsdapi providing an overly narrow and odd definition for machine:

dreifach

Boosting this — very important to me! Would like to see the Oxford English Dictionary added too, via their API.