[Ian]
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 ...
[Arlo]
Yes, that a word is heavily contentious just shows that meaning is NOT
constant, and its kinda absurd to think an "authority" can step in and make it
so.
Our language is always a place where some words/ideas are more or less
contested than others at any given time, and everyone knows that some
foundation of consensus is necessary lest we spend all our time unable to
communicate at all.
But "more or less contested" is not the same as "an authority has decreed that
THIS means THAT". It simply means the majority at the moment have said "okay,
for this we agree it means that, now lets talk about this other".
[Ian]
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.
[Arlo]
What a good "authority" does is scour a broad range of use and try to tease
apart for that moment the common consensus of meaning. But it is not, nor has
it ever been, something that halts negotiation.
To ground this in our discussion, here we have this word/concept "theism". Who
is the final authority on what that word "means"? The editor of a dictionary?
(Man, that's power I'd love to wield!) Let's say MW's authoritarian editor
publishes a dictionary that defines "theism" as "a psychosis of belief". Would
you argue? Accept? Turn to other authorities?
The case in point here was that Wikipedia used the word "deity" while MW did
not. So does "theism" have anything to do with a belief in a deity? Has the
authority at MW decided correctly it does not?
Consider that for MW, the primary definition for "theism" is "belief in god or
gods" (Michael's view). But for dictionary.com its "the belief in one God as
the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation".
Cambridge's online dictionary defines theism as only "the belief that there is
only one god, who is completely separate from those things (the Earth, people,
etc.) he has created, rather than being part of them".
Which is right? What about the "authoritative" encyclopedic definitions I
pointed to yesterday? Which is "right"? The one that you agree with? ("You" in
the general sense).
[Ian]
It took Wikipedia a few years to learn this, but they have learned the value of
editorial authority recently.
[Arlo]
Meaningful negotiation needs protection from those who would disrupt the
process, to be sure. If MW is bombarded by people who seek to define "theism"
as "a psychosis" it needs to have sufficient buffering to know that this is NOT
part of the majority commonly held use. Wikipedia found that with popularity
came those who would bring harm rather than meaningful negotiation.
Anyone can still propose ideas, and good ones become part of the ongoing
negotiation of meaning, but individuals are prevented from usurping the
negotiation process for their own disruptive purposes.
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/
