Abstract. Democracy lives in the participation of citizens, who can contribute to the politics of a state, both directly by electing representatives and also indirectly by expressing their ideas, suggestions, or wishes. In addition to these ways of directly and indirectly shaping politics, people inform themselves about political happenings and exchange their views about them with one another. For dictionaries, a similar breadth of options exists for participation: users swap ideas with those providing the dictionaries and among themselves. They formulate requests, give feedback, or play an active role in creating dictionary entries.

The Internet is increasingly shaping our society and connecting us ever more strongly with one another. By the mid-1990s, the use of so-called social media technologies, such as blogs, wikis, or social networks, had changed the Internet from a repository of curated expert in­for­ma­tion into an interactive platform for exchanging user-generated content. In this changed en­vi­ron­ment, referred to as “Web 2.0”, Internet dictionaries increasingly involve dictionary users in lexicographic activities. The degree of user participation ranges from user-driven compilations of entire dictionaries and feedback about the quality of individual entries to dialogues between lexicographers and users or among users themselves.

These new forms of user participation on the Web have hardly been researched. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the different possibilities for involving dictionary users directly, indirectly, or in accessory ways when compiling a dictionary. Above all, the assessment of quality and clarification of legal issues are of paramount interest in order to be able to evaluate the potential of user-generated content. In addition to a systematic categorisation of user contributions, we discuss several practical examples of individual organisational forms and examine possible motivations for active involvement. Furthermore, we seek to prompt a critical discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of user participation.