Dictionaries · head-to-head
Chinese Text Project vs Wiktionary
Chinese Text Project's JSON API resolves opaque CTP URNs into full text, titles, and subsection metadata across its library of pre-Qin and Han-era classical Chinese works, and underpins the site's own browser plugins for text lookup and annotation. Anonymous requests work without any key but are rate-limited; logged-in accounts get a higher ceiling, and academic institutions can arrange a subscription that issues API keys for extended, programmatic access.
Wiktionary exposes its full multilingual dictionary — definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and translations spanning thousands of languages — through the same MediaWiki Action API that powers Wikipedia, with no key required for read access. Cross-origin browser requests need the documented origin=* query parameter rather than a bare Origin header, since that's what actually unlocks the API's CORS headers.
| Chinese Text Project | Wiktionary | |
|---|---|---|
| Authentication | None | None |
| Pricing | freemium | free |
| Formats | JSON | JSON, XML |
| CORS | yes | yes |
| HTTPS | Yes | Yes |
Wiktionary supports 2 response formats, while Chinese Text Project offers fewer — pick Wiktionary for more integration flexibility.