I might say that for anything contentious (where negotiation of meaning doesn't converge easily and different people have different "interests" in agreed meanings) Wikipedia is actually a useless place to find a definition ... which kinda proves Arlo's point ... all meaning is negotiated, it's just a matter of how stably it is agreed and how slowly it changes thereafter.
Aside - Which is why some editorial authority is needed to publish a dictionary (or encyclopedia) of any real value - a brake on instability and too rapid change. It took Wikipedia a few years to learn this, but they have learned the value of editorial authority recently. Ian On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Michael] > "Dialogic nature" is by definition wholly useless for the purpose of > establishing a commonly accepted definition of a word. > > [Arlo] > Surely you can see the error in this. Establishing a definition is always > dialogic. Word meanings change over time, not because any one authority "says > so", but because we are always in the process of negotiating meaning. > > [Michael] > Etymological constancy is the foundation for dialog, *not* the other way > around. If the meaning of words are dialogic in nature, dialog becomes > meaningless. > > [Arlo] > No. Because meaning is dialogic, dialog is possible. The "constancy" is simply > a moment of shared concensus; not final nor permanent in any manner. > > [Michael] > That said, I don't discount that wikipedia has value. But recent changes being > proposed to deal with the very problem I point out only re-inforce my point... > > [Arlo] > What you see is the lack of meaningful negotiation. Whether or not its "in the > open", these problems (well, they aren't problems per se) exist even at > "authoritative publishers", you simply aren't privy to the backroom dialog at > Britannica HQ. > > [Michael] > when the topic is politically charged, wikipedia's reliability as a neutral > source breaks down where other more "authoritarian" models hold up. > > [Arlo] > Many would disagree, myself among them. There have been countless criticisms > over the year of "bias" in Britannica and other "authoritarian" models, again > you simply aren't privy to them. But if you think the consensus reached by > "authoritarian" models is any less dialogic, or any less contested, you are > sorely mistaken. > > [Michael] > Meaning by democracy is not meaning. > > [Arlo] > Yikes! I'd say meaning without negotiation is impossible, but imposed > "meaning" > when it occurs is arbitrary and illusionary. Witness our disagreement over the > definition of "theism". Which "authority" do we turn to? In what context? A > one-line sentence in MW? Britannica? Wikipedia? Is any of these "always right" > whereas the others "always wrong"? Is there any sans "bias"? (My personal > opinion is that "bias" is a charge only leveled against a source you disagree > with). > > Back to the dictionary thing, I am tempted to point out the similarity between > this and Pirsig's ZMM talk on how instruction manuals are written. Their genre > tends towards the appearance of an absolute "right way", and provides them > with > an air of legitimacy, but really they are one or more people simply stating > what they think is the right way, and a system that has limited dialog to > present alternatives. In short, dictionaries are (to me) the least valuable > source in ascertaining meaning. Corpora, real language in context across a > broad sampling of use, likely gives a much richer portrait of what any "word" > means. > > For what its worth, I don't present Wikipedia as any "final authority" either. > Its just one voice. Much better to get a broad view of meaning ascribed to > words to see how any word in culture will likely be taken when used. > > [Michael] > And this is really diverging from the topic at hand, so... > > [Arlo] > So I've changed the topic header. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
