Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - Wikipedia-l

Sj

31 Dec 31 Dec

10:38 a.m.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:13:56 -0800, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

In this article ( http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1374741,00.html ) Collins compares its new Living Dictionary - which takes submissions from users - to Wikipedia. Maybe this would be a good place to direct the authors of attempted neologisms that end up getting deleted?

That's a neat article. And a good idea for neologisms... we will need a good slang dictionary to refer to in ten years once time has filtered out those that have no permanence. -- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]

Reply

Fred Bauder

5:07 a.m.

I played around a little bit there today. "Wiki" was considered a new word. "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedian" are being considered, but the definitions are lifted from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia articles without credit. Fred

...

From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:47:23 -0800 To: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>om>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery Sj wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:13:56 -0800, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

In this article ( http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1374741,00.html ) Collins compares its new Living Dictionary - which takes submissions from users - to Wikipedia. Maybe this would be a good place to direct the authors of attempted neologisms that end up getting deleted?

That's a neat article. And a good idea for neologisms... we will need a good slang dictionary to refer to in ten years once time has filtered out those that have no permanence.

It seems that Collins' effort is to be snickeringly welcomed. Our experience with protologisms at Wiktionary has been somewhat Rocky. New words are being invented with great regularity, but it's no easy task to distinguish between something that expresses a need and someone's flight of fancy that is firmly grounded in his illiteracy. The thought of an established institution having to cope with our friendly POV warriors brings a smile to my face. In Wiktionary I seem to have taken on the role of the arch-conservative by promoting the concept of verifiability. This is every bit as important as it is in Wikipedia. Collins works from the anchor of an established dictionary; this makes them better equipped to deal with some often eccentric neologisms. Our Scylla and Charybdis requires navigating between potential copyright violations on one side and newly minted inaccracies on the other. Ec _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Reply

Mark Williamson

11:21 p.m.

Why not? Will it suddenly become 'uncool' to be a Wikipedian once the word enters public usage? Mark On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:41:10 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton <rich_holton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

I played around a little bit there today. "Wiki" was considered a new word. "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedian" are being considered, but the definitions are lifted from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia articles without credit.

This concerns me. Anyone else? Not the lack of credit per se, but the idea that these "words" are being considered as neologisms. Wikipedia is our trade mark, and perhaps we should also claim "Wikipedian". We don't want these to fall into general use. -Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:user:Rholton) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Reply

Mark Williamson

11:26 p.m.

Yes, but what about Google? I think we are destined to follow in their steps. Wikipedia is currently a unique service and I doubt others will spring up (well, they already have, but I doubt they'll ever be very big). When you google something, it means you went to google.com and searched for it using the Google search engine. And if we do start to go the way of Kleenex or Xerox, it won't be Collins' fault. Collins isn't responsible for language change, they are just trying to document it. Mark On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:10:56 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton <rich_holton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

--- Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Why not? Will it suddenly become 'uncool' to be a Wikipedian once the word enters public usage?

It's a question of trade mark protection. Kleenex is a trademark, but now people often use it to refer to any facial tissue. Same thing for Xerox (Can I make a xerox of that?), and several others I can't think of at the moment. If we don't take steps to protect our trademark, then we can lose it. We are not a wikipedia. We are _the Wikipedia_. I would love for the name Wikipedia to be on everyone's tongue. But only as a brand name, _the_ Wikipedia, referring to one specific (set of) on-line encyclopedia(s). Not as a generic term for any encyclopedia-type on-line resource using wiki software. If what Collins is doing does not jeopardize our trademark, great! But we need to watch to make sure. -Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:User:Rholton) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Reply