Jimmy Wales wrote:
First, and example, and then a question/suggestion. If you get bored with my example, please continue anyway to my question/suggestion. :)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/15/how_many_times_mu...
Some are easy, of course, like the Wikipedia entry claiming that the word blackboard ‘‘is now perceived by some as being ’politically incorrect’ in the United Kingdom.’’ ‘‘Citation needed,’’ a parenthesis cautioned. Indeed: a Nexis search of UK publications found some 30 blackboards in a week, against just three chalkboards.
In the context of that Boston Globe article our cynicism ends up looking pretty good. Compare this to the others who simply quoted the politically correct material without question. The one who couldn't distinguish explication from political correctness in Dylan's lyrics does not even have the musical sense to recognize that replacing a monosyllable with a pentasyllable won't work.
I believe that the word "blackboard" is indeed retreating into obsolescence, but not for the reasons stated. Slate is an expensive commodity that is best reserved for useful things like pool tables, that has first been replaced by manufactured greenboards where chalk could still be used, and more recently by whiteboards where we can use a kind of erasable magic marker. If you think that whiteboard is not politically correct you can no longer complain by long scratchest with your fingernails.
This is a quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Our full text reads:
Political correctness is a real or perceived attempt to refine or restrict language and terms used in public discussion to those deemed acceptable or appropriate. For example "blackboard" is now perceived
by >some as being "politically incorrect" in the United Kingdom, [citation >needed] and so teachers are instructed to call it a "chalkboard" >instead.
The tag was added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_change&diff=43364581&...
So from March 12 until now, we have a request that this dubious tidbit be sourced, with no movement.
That diff also shows that that editor also made a number of unrelated changes to the article at the same time. Also missing at the time of his edit were the key words "by some" that appear in your quote. I would think that the standard of evidence should be much stricter if the words "by some" are omitted.
Ecan