Hi Felix,
I disagree with what you just have said. Let me explain why. (BTW: I
am a master of media, so I am in the middle of this discussion)
The Dutch part of wikipedia is in the Dutch language only and our
entry was, of course, in English. As a researcher, i would like to
share this Dutch
On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 16:33, Geert Lovink wrote:
What is kind of amazing is the Anglo-Saxon language policing, which
term is and is not 'proper' English. An (English) wikipedia entry
cannot be valid if it based on 'foreign language' sources now about
that? Wikipedia is not a
Thanks, Pit.
Here an update. A while the entry deleted (again).
What is kind of amazing is the Anglo-Saxon language policing, which
term is and is not 'proper' English. An (English) wikipedia entry
cannot be valid if it based on 'foreign language' sources now about
that? Wikipedia is
there are many examples like this. wikipedians are quite tolerant to
people adding their own names if they play in a band etc. but neologisms
do not easily get in, especially if they are derivates of established ones -
mostly when they do not pass the google test. if a notion is not
established
Update: Wikipedia editors are again considering to delete the shocklog
entry. Interesting remark is this context is their suspicion of
'foreign language' blogs being involved as references. But who is
foreign in this case? English for those write Dutch? Or Dutch for those
know only English?
Hmmm, how about trying the non-neologism Schlocks q.v.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/shlock, or the interesting not
quite neologism Schlogks,
MG
Update: Wikipedia editors are again considering to delete the shocklog
entry. Interesting remark is this context is their suspicion of
(dear nettimers, together with students of the masters-of-media blog at
the university of amsterdam i have been working on a wikipedia entry
about so-called shock logs or shock blogs. it is been an interesting
experience to see that our entry has been deleted on a number of
occasions because
