User talk:Bloodofox
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Mnemosientje
We don't do sources like Wikipedia does. A book that is self-published is still a book. We are documenting how the word is actually used by speakers and writers, not the reliability of the contents of books. Equinox ◑
- That's obviously a problem and demands further scrutiny. It's incredibly easy to game a system by way of internet self-publishing. That says nothing about how the word is used, but plenty about how the author would, say, like for said term to be used. We need reliable sources discussing these things. Bloodofox (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- It actually hasn't proven to be a problem at all. As a dictionary, we describe language as it is used, and if enough people use a word in a certain way then it has a meaningful existence in a language community, linguistically speaking, and merits inclusion. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. All we need is enough attested usage in permanently recorded media for a word, or sense of a word, to 'exist' as far as we're concerned. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is obviously a problem and does not hold up to scrutiny. Self-published books are not representative of use case, particularly from white supremacist organizations like the Odinic Rite. Self-published stuff on the internet says nothing about use about any given community, simply by the individual. Obviously, we need higher standards or we're just promoting someone's self-published ideas rather than reflecting the reality of use—and when organizations such as the Odinic Rite are involved, that's a real problem that shouldn't be taken lightly. Bloodofox (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your link leads to a page I cannot view. Anyhow: if a term is limited to white supremacist subcultures, that means that association should be indicated on the entry, not that the sense/entry should be removed entirely. 'Problematic' words are still words; e.g. see Category:White supremacist ideology. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The term's use isn't limited to white supremacist organizations, but the article contained a citation from one such organization over other options—which implicitly promotes a self-published book by a white supremacist organization. This stuff needs context and discussion, and we can certainly do better than that. Bloodofox (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- And has been restored with the threat of a block. Exactly why is this site promoting a self-published book by a white supremacist organization when many other examples from superior and more representative sources are out there? Bloodofox (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The term's use isn't limited to white supremacist organizations, but the article contained a citation from one such organization over other options—which implicitly promotes a self-published book by a white supremacist organization. This stuff needs context and discussion, and we can certainly do better than that. Bloodofox (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your link leads to a page I cannot view. Anyhow: if a term is limited to white supremacist subcultures, that means that association should be indicated on the entry, not that the sense/entry should be removed entirely. 'Problematic' words are still words; e.g. see Category:White supremacist ideology. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is obviously a problem and does not hold up to scrutiny. Self-published books are not representative of use case, particularly from white supremacist organizations like the Odinic Rite. Self-published stuff on the internet says nothing about use about any given community, simply by the individual. Obviously, we need higher standards or we're just promoting someone's self-published ideas rather than reflecting the reality of use—and when organizations such as the Odinic Rite are involved, that's a real problem that shouldn't be taken lightly. Bloodofox (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- It actually hasn't proven to be a problem at all. As a dictionary, we describe language as it is used, and if enough people use a word in a certain way then it has a meaningful existence in a language community, linguistically speaking, and merits inclusion. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. All we need is enough attested usage in permanently recorded media for a word, or sense of a word, to 'exist' as far as we're concerned. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can improve the cites. You can't repeatedly and disruptively remove an attested sense. Equinox ◑ 17:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct me toward whatever wiktionary has on sourcing, as currently this entry is promoting a self-published book by a white supremacist organization under the guise of use case, and I'm not OK with that. Bloodofox (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can improve the cites. You can't repeatedly and disruptively remove an attested sense. Equinox ◑ 17:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The use of a word in a book you personally dislike (whether it's Mein Kampf or Green Eggs and Ham) is still a real-world use and provides support for the word's existence. What you are personally "okay with" politically is totally irrelevant. Do you understand now? Equinox ◑ 17:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I also hope you don't have to be told that quoting from a book does not mean you agree with its contents. Or do you think we should erase everything objectionable from academic history curricula too? Equinox ◑ 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I get that you're new to this particular topic and, it would seem, the field of linguistics more broadly exterior to wiktionary, but a self-published book by a white supremacist organization demonstrates nothing. Your aggressive defense of its inclusion over alternatives that do not resemble propaganda pamphlets is a lot more troubling.
- We need something better demonstrating use. It's unclear why the Routledge piece isn't enough, other than wiktionary user personal preference—which just so happens in this case to mean promoting an extremely obscure, self-published book by a white supremacist organization they happened to pull up on Google Books. Are wiktionary editors just making up sourcing guidelines as they go along or what? Bloodofox (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to someone more patient to reply in full again, but I will say this: your condescending and insinuatory tone is not helping. Also: I linked WT:WINW before in the discussion above. Please read it, and read WT:WFW while you're at it. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)