Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Disclaimer: I'm a moderate descriptivist, whereas it seems you might be
at least a moderate prescriptivist (see [[en:prescription and
description]]).
I think we ought to document neologisms if they have been used by any
high-profile source (any major author, for example), or if they are used
by any verifiable subculture. I do agree that if I coin a word and my
friends use it, that doesn't count, so there has to be a judgment call
somewhere. A widespread neologism with specific connotations, like the
phrase "teh sukc", ought to be documented, though. Wikipedia's always
has as one of its strengths that it gets articles on new concepts before
almost anyone else, so it'd be a shame if Wiktionary didn't have similar
advantages.
They can of course be discussed neutrally--mention if they're in other
major dictionaries or not, who uses them and to what extent, etc. But
we're not the language police...
-Mark