I hadn’t used Wiktionary for a few years, so I just spent some time looking through it. It was pretty good a few years ago, and now it looks even better. I’m sure many people find it very useful. The amount of information on each page, though, might make it a bit intimidating to some users.
It also seems to have some unevenness in coverage. For example, the entry for the word “anecdata” (a word discussed recently at [1]), has five illustrative quotations, which are quite handy [2]. The entry for the more mundane “anecdote,” however, has none [3]. Such unevenness might be inevitable in volunteer dictionary projects, as volunteers like to work on the more interesting words.
I use Wiktionary pretty often, and it has come in particularly useful this past week!
We're translating some strings on our software user interface, and checking the abbreviations and acronyms used. Sometimes there are amusing or [nsfw] connotations in other languages! Thank you Wiktionary for warning us about abbreviating "low pressure" as "LP" in Taiwan.
I don't really use it often as a user nor i my projects to have a definite opinion. There is some pairs of words (about 5K) in Sino-Vietnamese that came with their chu nom writing which was very helpful to one of project. Otherwise I think it lacks structure and can't be harvested automatically easily (I don't think Wikidata integrate it all, and that website is a non-starter for me). Also every language is structured differently so Wiktionary can hardly be commented as a whole.
> Otherwise I think it lacks structure and can't be harvested automatically easily
Indeed, it depends on the language and your goals - I had a very high success rate plucking out Russian grammatical tables from English Wiktionary with a few hours of scripting the data cleaning (https://github.com/thombles/declensions). I have a theory that you could get better results using an offline archive of the page sources but haven't tried this yet.
