[Wikipedia-l] Re: protologisms in Wiktionary

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.