RIP Dictionaries, long live Wikipedia

[Dubious]

I am asking you to show why you think I am not rational.

Rational people have reasons for what they say. When asked, they can produce them.

Look in mirror to notice an immediate exception. That being true, it's opposite must likewise be; irrational responses generally denotes an irrational mind which does not imply that everything they say must necessarily be considered irrational. Even the insane have their interlude moments.

[Immanuel Can]

I am asking you to show why you think I am not rational.

Rational people have reasons for what they say. When asked, they can produce them.

Look in mirror to notice an immediate exception.

A non-answer. If I were the worst person on earth, that still wouldn't imply Skep had any reasons for what he said, or could answer my question (or could do so without revealing he's got nothing.)

[Dubious]

Rational people have reasons for what they say. When asked, they can produce them.

Look in mirror to notice an immediate exception.

A non-answer. If I were the worst person on earth, that still wouldn't imply Skep had any reasons for what he said, or could answer my question (or could do so without revealing he's got nothing.)

It's actually the perfect answer when considering your perpetual irrational and intentional misinterpretations, of which you've been constantly reminded throughout so many of your posts; looking in the mirror shows the image of a self-righteous hypocrite spouting principles hardly ever adhered to.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Problem: real words aren't just made up on the spot by people who play with wikis.

They are the product of a long etymological and linguistic process, with billions of participants, most of whom are now dead.

For the work of random strangers the description of "Democracy" given in Wikipedia sure informs significantly better than the description given in the Oxford dictionary.

What's your hypothesis on why that is?

There is a tradition, a legacy, a history of effective use, a morphology, a syntatical pattern, and so on, in the words compiled in a good dictionary.

That's reductionism at its worst. Morphology studies relationships between words. Democracy is about relationships between the members of society.

And a good dictionary invites us into the benefits of this legacy, and brings in others as well, so that we can communicate effectively, by shaping our usage according to common and historical understanding.

Wikipedia paints far better common AND historical understanding of Democracy than any damn dictionary.

Wikis are only touched by a very limited selection of today's people...and not the most intelligent ones.

Seems the dumbest members of society did a better job on Wikipedia than the smartest morpholigists in the Oxford dictionary.

There is no regular editing or checking to see if the contributions are actually right.

Define your criterion for "rightness". What is the process by which the "rightness" of a dictionary is verified?

Seeming as dictionaries are appealed to as authorities.

How do I go about challenging a dictionary entry?

What a complete idiot. I rarely agree with IC, but he was spot on with his original reply. That should have been enough for you. What the fuck are you arguing about? There are certain universally accepted standards of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error, in every field. If you want to make morons feel good about themselves then I suggest you go to a backstreet quack when you next need surgery...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dictionaries are still useful.
Dictionaries are merely based on popular usage of a word and what they mean or represent BUT they don't claim to represent truths at all.
A dictionary will accept the word "@$#%@&" if there are sufficient people, say up to 100 or even if there are 10 million people, agreeing with its commonly accepted meaning within the media.
Thus if "@$#%@&" is an entry in a dictionary and someone used that term on you, you have to check the meaning of it [to ensure it is not derogatory, vulgar, potentially dangerous].

Wiki on the other hand cover what is in the dictionary and they display what others are claiming as truth of reality.
As such Wiki provide the avenue to trace to the sources of various claims.
This is why we often see the term "[citations needed]" in wiki articles.
Wiki by itself is not an authority nor represent any authority on knowledge and truths.
As such, whatever is presented in Wiki, one need to track them to their original source to ensure it is credible.

One can simply quote Wiki, but that is by default qualified with its specific limitations.

[Skepdick]

My question first.

I answered it already.

Read the entry on "Democracy" in Wikipedia.
Read the entry on "Democracy" in a dictionary.

Wikipedia is better. This is a sufficient proof for the truth of my claim to any non-idiot, but it is not sufficient for you, so I am asking...

Which notion of Proof and Truth are you using?

[Age]

Problem: real words aren't just made up on the spot by people who play with wikis.

They are the product of a long etymological and linguistic process, with billions of participants, most of whom are now dead. There is a tradition, a legacy, a history of effective use, a morphology, a syntatical pattern, and so on, in the words compiled in a good dictionary. And a good dictionary invites us into the benefits of this legacy, and brings in others as well, so that we can communicate effectively, by shaping our usage according to common and historical understanding.

Wikis are only touched by a very limited selection of today's people...and not the most intelligent ones. There is no regular editing or checking to see if the contributions are actually right. At its best, it may end up fairly accurate; at worst, it's just a compilation of the prejudices and errors of a very linguistically limited generation.

"fairly accurate", relative to what, EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

Dictionaries are still useful.
Dictionaries are merely based on popular usage of a word and what they mean or represent BUT they don't claim to represent truths at all.

This is not about truth. It's about utility.

If you ask the question: What is the popular usage of the word "democracy"?

Would you say that a dictionary or wikipedia answers your question better?
Would you say that the dictionary or wikipedia provides a more democratic answer to your question?

A dictionary will accept the word "@$#%@&" if there are sufficient people, say up to 100 or even if there are 10 million people, agreeing with its commonly accepted meaning within the media.
Thus if "@$#%@&" is an entry in a dictionary and someone used that term on you, you have to check the meaning of it [to ensure it is not derogatory, vulgar, potentially dangerous].

So how do I go about contributing to a dictionary? I know how to do it for Wikipedia.

Wiki on the other hand cover what is in the dictionary and they display what others are claiming as truth of reality.
As such Wiki provide the avenue to trace to the sources of various claims.
This is why we often see the term "[citations needed]" in wiki articles.

What do you mean by truth and reality?

Wiki by itself is not an authority nor represent any authority on knowledge and truths.

And a dictionary does?

As such, whatever is presented in Wiki, one need to track them to their original source to ensure it is credible.

Who is the original source on the meaning of "Democracy"?

Suraly the meaning of Democracy is much better captured when the process of defining Democracy is democratized?

[Skepdick]

There are certain universally accepted standards of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error, in every field.

I agree with this 1000%.

Given your well-developed, intrinsic standard of excellence which you've gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error. Which one strikes you as the better result?

The entry on Democracy in Wikipedia; or the entry on Democracy in the Oxford dictionary?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There are certain universally accepted standards of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error, in every field.

I agree with this 1000%.

Given your well-developed, intrinsic standard of excellence which you've gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error. Which one strikes you as the better result?

The entry on Democracy in Wikipedia; or the entry on Democracy in the Oxford dictionary?

42

[Skepdick]

42

Looks like your universal standards of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error just broke...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

42

Looks like your universal standards of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error just broke...

Ask a stupid question......

pssst. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and the Oxford dictionary isn't an encyclopaedia.

[Skepdick]

Ask a stupid question......

Why is it a stupid question? I am asking you to consult your universal standard of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error and make a judgment.

Is the entry on democracy in Wikipedia qualitatively better than the entry on democracy in the Oxford dictionary?

pssst. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and the Oxford dictionary isn't an encyclopaedia.

I know! But what does this have to do with my question?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ask a stupid question......

Why is it a stupid question? I am asking you to consult your universal standard of excellence, gained through centuries of evolution and trial and error and make a judgment.

Is the entry on democracy in Wikipedia qualitatively better than the entry on democracy in the Oxford dictionary?

pssst. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and the Oxford dictionary isn't an encyclopaedia.

I know! But what does this have to do with my question?

You don't make any sense. Stop trying to be clever. It's not working.

[Skepdick]

You don't make any sense. Stop trying to be clever. It's not working.

Which part of my question is not making sense to you, clever one?

Is the entry on democracy in Wikipedia qualitatively better than the entry on democracy in the Oxford dictionary?