Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
And what is the criteria that make a word that
don't exist
officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
This particular part of the problem has a very easy solution:
If there is any doubt about a word, start the article by explaining
how and when the word has been used, for example
"the leader of the green party Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy has often used the
word 'biodiversity' in her speeches in parliament, and in an often
cited article in Le Monde in February 2000. She uses this word to
mean ...".
As you can see, this is very different from
"I just invented the word 'elxkajels', and I want it to mean ...".
The former is NPOV, since it describes actual facts (Mrs X Y used this
word), whereas the latter is subjective (I want...). The former helps
people understand what they hear and read in news media, and thus has
a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is online and moves faster
than L'Academie Francaise. Perhaps they should be reading Wikipedia
to discover new words.
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out of use, that only
need to be explained to help people understand really old texts, such
as Phlogiston.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Free Wireless Networking -
http://elektrosmog.nu/