[Wikipedia-l] protologisms in Wiktionary

[Ray Saintonge]

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.

Ec