[Wikipedia-l] Re: protologisms in Wiktionary

[Michael Snow]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> 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.

I don't know where the problem is greater, but this certainly occurs 
plenty on Wikipedia as well. Protologisms, or as I would call them 
"attempted neologisms", are a regular feature on Votes for Deletion and 
go swiftly to their fate. The no-original-research policy would be the 
ideal starting point for Wiktionary to use, I would think.

I'm quite surprised at you, Ray, you're almost starting to sound like a 
deletionist. (Please, nobody start a flamewar over this - I'm only teasing.)

--Michael Snow