My own thought is that gikun readings can be manufactured willy-nilly by applying the reading of one synonym to the headword for another. So there should be a relatively high bar of entry for gikun readings that make it into the dictionary; including idiosyncratic ones would just make a mess of things, and possibly cause more confusion than clarity. I think part of the problem with the “Google it” method (in addition to Jim’s comment) is the idea that--to some extent--if a gikun reading is uncommon enough that the reading consistently has to be supplied alongside the kanji, then that may also kind of suggest that it the gikun is not common enough that it needs to be recorded in the dictionary. The actual proof that a gikun is worthwhile is if the gikun reading is widely known by native speakers even ~without~ the reading supplied. That’s something that’s much more difficult to show just from Google hits, I think. After all, this is a Japanese–English dictionary (not English–Japanese), so: 1) helping our users to select artistic ways of writing things when translating from English to Japanese should not really be a concern, and 2) if the gikun reading is so uncommon that it has to be given to the reader anyway, then they can just look up either the headword or the real entry for the reading.
|