I think as long as it's pretty obvious from the context that Wikimedia is
not establishing a sovereign socialist nation, we should be fine with the
current terminology.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:48 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On 04/06/2013 09:16 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
By the way, it would be lovely not to call
communication like
nationalization... sometimes I see people coming to communities saying
they're socializing something and it feels weird. ;-) (Especially as
it's false good news.)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialize
(transitive) To take into collective or governmental ownership
Nemo
Nemo, I have sympathy for you here -- it took a while for me to get
used to the use of "socialize" in the way the Wikimedia communities use
it. [...]
I don't have much sympathy. Looking at
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialization>:
---
1. The process of learning one's culture
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> and how to live within it.
2. The act of interacting with others, of being social.
3. Taking under government control as implementing socialism.
---
Given the precedence here (the definition having to do with governments
and socialism is third), I don't think it's very reasonable to call the
usage within Wikimedia wrong or even noteworthy.
My local dictionary (New Oxford American Dictionary) also lists the
socialism definition third.
So, yes, if you choose to ignore the primary and secondary definitions,
the tertiary definition isn't a great fit. This is why it's the tertiary
definition, of course.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l