Why should language be controlled by central, and private organizations like Merriam-Webster, Oxford English Dictionary, etc.? Language is organic and should evolve with people. What better to reflect that than a crowd sourced dictionary?
Why should language be controlled by central, and private organizations like Merriam-Webster, Oxford English Dictionary, etc.? Language is organic and should evolve with people. What better to reflect that than a crowd sourced dictionary?
Success? Is that what you think dictionaries should be?
If a bunch of people start using a new word, whether it’s because a prominent author makes it up, or a foreigner teaches it to some people, or it evolved as slang among teens, if a diverse cross section of the popluace start using the word, then guess what? Lexicographers put it in their dictionary!
They don’t make up the new words. Lexicographers document language usage. They don’t dictate it. A dictionary isn’t the Bible.
Go look up “fake” words like irregardless. You’ll find it with it’s definition showing the way many people use it, despite it being a double negative word with an illogical usage. And the only hint of prescriptivism will be the note “nonstandard” next to it because the vast majority of people recognize it as a wrong word.
If you want a dictionary full of made up slang and memes go to Urban Dictionary. Meanwhile, Wiktionary is a standard dictionary edited by professional and amateur word enthusiasts who document word usage.
Fair points!
I think this is still something worth pursuing, and supporting — regardless of the innacuracies that supported my initial post. There are many potential benefits that come with an openly supported service (e.g. more exensive, and, generally, free APIs, mirroring/archival capabilities, neat things like viewing edit/development history, community support for better front-ends, etc.).