Steven Walling wrote:
Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots". It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
I do note that "Wikipediot" does not appear in the main body of Cool Hand Luke's article. It's easy to draw parallels between this and the thread about pictures of Muhammed. It shows that it takes much less than talking about a major religious figure for people to choose to be offended. Phrasing your reference to journalists as newsies as a rhetorical question isn't helpful. I have no way of knowing whether you have or not. For that matter I can't remember whether I have myself used it that way or not. It's not that I wouldn't; I simply don't remember doing that.
We are a large organization that is very much in the public eye. Parody and seemingly defamatory comments are just a normal part of the landscape. I choose not to waste my time getting offended over such designations.
As for the "grammatically nonsensical", this argument fails. One of the features that has made English so dominant in today's world is its ability to form new words without restrictions from some academy. If the term "Wikipediot" evoked some image in your mind it works. The image does not need to be one with which you agree. Had it been grammatical nonsense, you would have been unable to make the response that you did.
Ec