Talk:antijournalismi
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Surjection in topic RFV discussion: July 2019
@Surjection, perhaps fake news has become a better translation now? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can't really find what exactly this term is supposed to mean in the first place since ghits are scarce, and thus I've RFV'd it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
@Hekaheka (as entry creator); where did you get this from? Never heard of it being used in this sense and I can't find many if any online results that use the term this way (or at all, really). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Google search for "antijournalismi" yields 651 hits. Also "antijournalisti" and "antijournalistinen" get Google hits. Here are some examples, which I believe demonstrate the usage that I described: [1], [2], [3]. It doesn't seem to be too common, and all examples are from readers' comments to articles that have been published in the internet. I can't remember what prompted me to create this entry. Perhaps somebody requested it. I don't think Wiktionary loses a masterpiece if it gets deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think those are sufficient to prove that the term is at least used, but I don't think the definition is the best it could be. The first is more along the lines of "that which is destroying journalism", i.e. "an act against journalism", while the latter two seem more in line with what we have, and perhaps the two could be conflated. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now I understand why I have added the article. It's because the term is included in the index of Finnish words [4]. I sometimes pick a section of the index and systematically add an entry for every term in the list. It seems that user Jyril included this term in the index when he founded it back in 2005. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think those are sufficient to prove that the term is at least used, but I don't think the definition is the best it could be. The first is more along the lines of "that which is destroying journalism", i.e. "an act against journalism", while the latter two seem more in line with what we have, and perhaps the two could be conflated. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've chosen to change the definition a bit, the rare label is probably enough. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)