[WikiEN-l] BLPs in the papers

[Ray Saintonge]

Steven Walling wrote:
> Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots".
> It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call
> journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the
> site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13A2-9FB530596FADE2A6
>>     
I do note that "Wikipediot" does not appear in the main body of Cool 
Hand Luke's article.  It's easy to draw parallels between this and the 
thread about pictures of Muhammed.  It shows that it takes much less 
than talking about a major religious figure for people to choose to be 
offended.  Phrasing your reference to journalists as newsies as a 
rhetorical question isn't helpful.  I have no way of knowing whether you 
have or not.  For that matter I can't remember whether I have myself 
used it that way or not.  It's not that I wouldn't; I simply don't 
remember doing that.

We are a large organization that is very much in the public eye.  Parody 
and seemingly defamatory comments are just a normal part of the 
landscape.  I choose not to waste my time getting offended over such 
designations.

As for the "grammatically nonsensical", this argument fails.  One of the 
features that has made English so dominant in today's world is its 
ability to form new words without restrictions from some academy.  If 
the term "Wikipediot" evoked some image in your mind it works.  The 
image does not need to be one with which you agree.  Had it been 
grammatical nonsense, you would have been unable to make the response 
that you did.

Ec