--- Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
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 ...".
very good advice Lars, thanks
With some luck, the real names of some wikipedians could appear in wikipedia :-)
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.
Hummmmm.....I don't know that word. It is not in my dic. Maybe it doesnot exist...anyway, it may belong to wiktionary more than wikipedia maybe ?
Seriously, phlog and phlox means flame. I would guess...that's an old type of lighter...or a cannon filled with oil-enflammed tissue used in middle age wars...or a mythological dragon...or a politician very skilled in spiting nasty comments...
right
I don't know
-------------
btw, thanks to all who gave good advices on this issue
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com