--- Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
And what is the criteria that make a word that
don't exist
officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
This particular part of the problem has a very easy
solution:
If there is any doubt about a word, start the
article by explaining
how and when the word has been used, for example
"the leader of the green party Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy has
often used the
word 'biodiversity' in her speeches in
parliament, and in an often
cited article in Le Monde in February 2000. She
uses this word to
mean ...".
very good advice Lars, thanks
With some luck, the real names of some wikipedians
could appear in wikipedia :-)
The former is NPOV, since it describes actual facts
(Mrs X Y used this
word), whereas the latter is subjective (I want...).
The former helps
people understand what they hear and read in news
media, and thus has
a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is online and
moves faster
than L'Academie Francaise. Perhaps they should be
reading Wikipedia
to discover new words.
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out
of use, that only
need to be explained to help people understand
really old texts, such
as Phlogiston.
Hummmmm.....I don't know that word. It is not in my
dic. Maybe it doesnot exist...anyway, it may belong to
wiktionary more than wikipedia maybe ?
Seriously, phlog and phlox means flame. I would
guess...that's an old type of lighter...or a cannon
filled with oil-enflammed tissue used in middle age
wars...or a mythological dragon...or a politician very
skilled in spiting nasty comments...
right
I don't know
-------------
btw, thanks to all who gave good advices on this issue
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com