Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
This particular part of the problem has a very easy solution: If there is any doubt about a word, start the article by explaining how and when the word has been used, for example
"the leader of the green party Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy has often used the word 'biodiversity' in her speeches in parliament, and in an often cited article in Le Monde in February 2000. She uses this word to mean ...".
As you can see, this is very different from
"I just invented the word 'elxkajels', and I want it to mean ...".
The former is NPOV, since it describes actual facts (Mrs X Y used this word), whereas the latter is subjective (I want...). The former helps people understand what they hear and read in news media, and thus has a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is online and moves faster than L'Academie Francaise. Perhaps they should be reading Wikipedia to discover new words.
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out of use, that only need to be explained to help people understand really old texts, such as Phlogiston.