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@telus.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:47:23 -0800 To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l