Residents of New Jersey may be surprised to find out that Wikipedia thinks that they live in a place called BosWash. They might think, "What is this term, and why have I never heard of it? I've heard of the Northeast, or the Northeast Corridor, but what's a BosWash?"

Then of course they can check out Wikipedia's article on BosWash, and follow the links, and realize of course that Wikipedians are sloppy and clueless as usual. Reading Wikipedia's own article, the term seems to have come from a book by one Jean Gottman. It's obviously never caught on, and a quick scan of Wikipedia's own "Notes" section appears to confirm this:



Notes 2 and 3 don't even appear to contain the term.

And using a Google search, the gold standard of Wikipedian scholarship, yields only a paltry 43,900 hits, making it even less popular and well-known, by Wikipedia standards, than a certain little-known nest of guttersnipes.

Maybe it makes sense to have a BosWash article if only to be thorough, but why would you have a sentence in the precious lead space of the New Jersey article? Why not in articles about New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Maryland? Oh, that's right, because everyone knows that New Jersey is a megalopolis, with flying bubble cars and houses and landfills covering the entire surface. Way to go NPOV-pedia.

BosWash is a term that has been used for years, referring to all the urbanbuildup between Boston and Washington DC, although anymore they consider the actual southern limit to be Richmond, Virginia.

Be grateful it was BosWash and not ChiPitt or SanSan.

I'd first heard the term BosWash in 1996, and have heard it used occasionally since then. What's wrong with 43,900 hits?

This article is totally legit.

It's little more than a dictionary definition plus a few lists. What is the social, geographical, or other educational purpose to separating out this particular region? About the only one I can see is that it is where the [[Northeast Corridor]] line runs, but there's already an article on that.

In any case, I think [[Northeast Corridor]] is probably a more popular name for this area, and therefore a better title. I base this purely on anecdotal evidence, having lived in various parts of this region most of my life, and having never even heard the term BosWash.

Wikipedia lives in its own little universe quite distinct from the offline, non-Googleable parts of reality.

I suppose the way to assure them their comeuppants is to start filling the San Francisco article with lots of references to "Frisco". This should get them run out of RiceErroneus Town in no time.

Jon

I hear it from time to time, but usually when I'm traveling up north of washington.

I'm aware of the term so it must be notable. Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence.

Yer anglish ear is probably confusing it with BossWasp, which is another thing entirely.

Jon

There's nothing wrong with my hearing except when I'm undergoing a sensory deprivation session.

Good idea. Here's my rewrite, so as to be consistent with the New Jersey article:

Oh Good. Now I can add to my recent acclamation as a Cross-Wiki Linkwistic-Spammer — and what Wiki is more Cross than Wikipedia? — the title of Imperial Munchkin-Vandal By Proxy.

Jon

Depends what you mean by notable. If you just mean that it should be mentioned somewhere, fine. But if you mean that there should be an article on the term, I always thought articles on terms were what they made dictionaries for.

That said, Wiktionary is about as bad for articles on terms as Wikinews is for articles on major events. Maybe it does make sense to just throw it all into Wikipedia.

On a completely different note, it's nice to see my anecdote is still in the New Jersey article: "it is free to cross into New Jersey, but motorists must pay when exiting the state". Or as I like to put it, "it's free to get into New Jersey, but you've gotta pay to get out."

I'm in the boat with Anthony. I've lived here my entire life in the NYC metro area and never heard it once.

Plenty of Tri-State for the proximity of NY, NJ, and CT...but never BosWash.

There is much to be said for having certain areas at least semi-independent of Wikipedia.

True. The better solution is to more tightly integrate the sites, and to adopt more outside-the-box thinking at the other sites. It's still not possible to click one button to transfer an article from Wikipedia to Wiktionary. There is no shared repository for templates. And as far as outside-the-box thinking, Wiktionary tries too hard to look like a regular dictionary. Check out the etymology section for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen compared to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Amen . The Wikipedia article is much better, even though etymologies are clearly the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias.

In theory it should be possible to get the best of both worlds. But maybe it's just too difficult in practice. As far as articles on news events I'm fairly accepting of keeping them in Wikipedia. So why not articles on words too? I guess one difference is that encyclopedias traditionally do have articles on news events, just not so soon after the event takes place. But I just checked, and Britannica does have an article on "amen", though they call it a "prayer" rather than a "word".

I guess the problem comes about with words like "BosWash". If I look up "BosWash" in an encyclopedia I want an article about the place, not an article about the word. If I wanted an article about the word, I'd look it up in a dictionary.

I agree with that. Encyclopaedic dictionaries do exist but are unsatisfactory compromises.

And certain websites that are completely independent from Wikipedia. There's no reason that Wikipedia should have a monopoly on the free wiki encyclopedia category. When people have a reasonable alternative, they will quickly realize just how bizarre Wikipedia is becoming.

Of course. That's why I'm proud to be an admin on Wipipedia and Wikinfo.