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_m…
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has first been replaced by manufactured greenboards where chalk could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