The following is my response to a question raised in the Beer Parlour of
the en:wiktionary about how far we go in accepting protologisms or newly
coined words. I have copied it here because it involves issues that can
be of concern to the broader community.
Wiktionary is frequently Googled, and because of its FDL availability it
is frequently copied into other websites. The result is that allowing
some protologism here has a multiplier effect. By allowing a protologism
we become advocates for it; we are no longer neutral, but begin to
collectively push a POV.
Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy. We need some parallel to
that. The support for a word is far more accessible that the details of
some complicated new theory in physics. With a physics theory the
average reader is soon lost in opaque details, and can quickly give up
in confusion. A word is different in that it's often easy to devise a
coherent definition. The average reader can understand it, and begin to
apply it in his own life. We are in a better position to get away with a
lot of public bullshit.
Strangely enough, I believe that Wiktionary has a far greater potential
than Wikipedia to being influential in the general public. I say this
notwithstanding the fact that it is much smaller, and receives far less
critical scrutiny than Wikipedia. A person who has found "prydxl" in
Wiktionary or any of its copycats could very well begin to use it
despite its bogus origins.
Protologisms are only part of the problem. The debate about "leet" words
come into it; so does the verifiability of any entry. Mix these with an
increasing level of influence, and we have a major ethical dilemma
relating to the function and purpose of any dictionary.
A dictionary chronicles the language in both its past and its present.
Its past needs to be subject to calls for evidence; if a word is
challenged the burden of proof for verifying its legitimacy needs to
fall upon the contributor. Otherwise, the rest of us are left with the
futile task of proving a negative. Evidence for new words is even more
important. It is not enough to say that the word was used in some
unspecified episode of a TV series. What amuses the members of today's
peanut gallery may be completely forgotten by this time next year when
the forces of marketing will have diverted our attention to some new
ephemeral fantasy. Web evidence does no better. It is not good to accept
any word as valid irregardless (sic!) of where you found it.
Ec