RIP Dictionaries, long live Wikipedia

[Skepdick]

Dictionaries are the authority to which we used to appeal to in order to settle arguments over the meaning of words before the advent
of the internet.

You can't lookup a dictionary for the meaning of "democracy" in 2021! The idea is too complex and nuanced to fit in a paragraph!
There's a better authority to appeal to in 2021 - Wikipedia.

For starters, Wikipedia undergoes a democratic editorial process and a dictionary doesn't! Wikipedia gives people the authority to democratically decide what "democracy" means! And then there is the fact that there's an article on "Democracy" in 173 different languages.

RIP dictionaries!

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[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. 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.

Wonderful post.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Dictionaries are the authority to which we used to appeal to in order to settle arguments over the meaning of words before the advent
of the internet.

You can't lookup a dictionary for the meaning of "democracy" in 2021! The idea is too complex and nuanced to fit in a paragraph!
There's a better authority to appeal to in 2021 - Wikipedia.

For starters, Wikipedia undergoes a democratic editorial process and a dictionary doesn't! Wikipedia gives people the authority to democratically decide what "democracy" means! And then there is the fact that there's an article on "Democracy" in 173 different languages.

RIP dictionaries!

And you only get shitty American bad spelling. Look up any word that Americans can't spell and the correct spelling is always in brackets with smaller lettering (if at all).

[Skepdick]

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?

[Skepdick]

And you only get shitty American bad spelling. Look up any word that Americans can't spell and the correct spelling is always in brackets with smaller lettering (if at all).

Du u now y u ken stil undastand wat dis sentens ses?

Language has massive levels of redundancy built-in to ensure correct transmission of meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory

[Immanuel Can]

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

So you say...but your capacities in reading, you have demonstrated, are not great.

What's your proof that's true?

[Skepdick]

So you say...but your capacities in reading, you have demonstrated, are not great.

I don't know if my capacities are "great" or "terrible", but I do know they exceed yours

What's your proof that's true?

Which notion of Proof and Truth are you using?

What are you asking for in practice given that the evidence is before you?

[Immanuel Can]

Which notion of Proof and Truth are you using?

Yours. It was your claim, made as if others should think it's right...so you must have one.

I'm asking you what makes you think you know any definition is "better," since you deny things like dictionaries and encyclopedias can be of any use...I'm asking you to show you're rational.

And you obfuscate. (Look that one up.)

[Skepdick]

Yours. It was your claim, made as if others should think it's right...so you must have one.

I must have one? These are your words, cupcake: "What's your proof that's true?"

How are you using those words? That answer is surely not in a dictionary, or in Wikipedia.

I'm asking you what makes you think you know any definition is "better," since you deny things like dictionaries and encyclopedias can be of any use...I'm asking you to show you're rational.

I am asking you to show why you think I am not rational. Surely you aren't being uncharitable?

And you obfuscate. (Look that one up.)

You are obfuscating who is obfuscating.

[uwot]

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

Chaucer and Shakespeare didn't have access to wikipedia, but they made words up on the spot. People do, it's how language works. The Oxford English Dictionary adds roughly 1000 words every year, some will gain traction, most will fade into obscurity.

Wonderful post.

Whatever floats yer boat. To me, it's typical reactionary fuckwittery from a typically reactionary fuckwit like Mr Can. You clearly care about some version of English. Hailing as I do from the epicentre of the English language, there are appreciably different dialects as little as 12 miles in every direction. What is this regional accent that you wish to preserve?

[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.

[Skepdick]

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

So what are the reasons for you saying this ?

I am asking. Please produce.

[uwot]

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.

Your reason for everything is 'because god'. If you set the bar that low, 'rational' becomes meaningless.

[Immanuel Can]

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

So what are the reasons for you saying this ?

My question first.