Microsoft Edits English

jbarr writes "An article in the 23-Oct-2000 issue of the New York Times (free reg blah blah blah) talks about how Microsoft has eliminated words from its thesaurus so as to "not suggest words that may have offensive uses or provide offensive definitions for any words". Entering a word like "idiot" yields no hits in Word 2000 unlike the numerous hits in Word 97." I don't think there's anything evil here, but it sure is funny.

Comments

1984 Anyone?

[Pilchie]

Nothing evil here. Have you ever read 1984?

Restricting language is _very_ evil.

Re:1984 Anyone?

[ichimunki]

Well, considering that 1984 is a work of fiction, as a result of it being written "we do know" nothing. What the book does, in a way, is extend the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stating that grammar and vocabulary influence thought-- which seems obvious enough. Except that it is ludicrous. At some point all thoughts were original and at some point there were no words (unless you believe in some creation myth and the attendant notion that language is a natural gift of humankind). It naturally follows that words, over time, gained an association with hard objects and then actions. Then with ephemeral matters such as ideas and feelings.

But at some point, some words had to be invented specifically to describe things that had never been described before. And the resulting word also needed a definition, probably mostly consisting of other, previously existing words-- an exception would be inventions, where the truest definition for the new word would be the invention itself, barring that a description of the invention.

While the lack of certain grammatical forms or vocabulary items may discourage their use, since they will be tagged as incorrect regardless of their actual correctness, there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that this will limit thought and the creation of ways to express this thought. More likely, as with politically-correct-speak, the result may only be slight discoloration of the thoughts.

Your associates who are too stupid to form grammatically correct sentences and spell words from memory do not use the spelling and grammar tools to formulate their ideas. They merely use them to alter their hasty or incompetent presentation of them so that they don't look like morons. The thesaurus is almost never a good tool to do anything but replace repeat occurrences of the same word with a couple of different words to liven up the text-- standard "Elements of Style" approach.

None of this should be construed as a defense of Microsoft. I find that their behavior in this regard and in many others to be highly objectionable-- and their products to be avoided if at all possible. If I'm paying for the tool to check my grammar and spelling, it should do it accurately and to accepted standards. Removing words is simply making your tool less apt for the job I have at hand... and it is for this reason that I would avoid this tool. It's expensive and it doesn't work? Forget them.

Re:1984 Anyone?

[bungalow]

No big brother here. Move along...

Thanks for your comforting words. However, you're an idiot.

What's an idiot?

Paranioa?

[Malorian]

Greetings friend citizen, the computer is your friend. Why do you want to use such words? Are you unhappy? **BzzRRRRtttt**

We're idiots

[OblongPlatypus]

From an unedited thesaurus:

Idiot [noun]: ass, fool, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal: dope, gander, goose. Slang: cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey

Slashdot: News for Idiots. Stuff that matters.

Not a good move

[Clovert Agent]

This is not a good idea, for at least two reasons that strike me as being so obvious I can't believe the marketing idio..er..moro..um..people at Microsoft didn't consider it.
Firstly, where's the accountability? Who's making the decision about which words to omit, and which to include? Do we really want to trust Microsoft to make decisions on our behalf regarding our use of language? Not really. This is not going to do much to raise trust in MS, although it probably won't do much to lower it either. It's a small enough fringe issue that most people will never know, which is part of why it's dangerous.
Second, there's the issue of market appeal. Office is supposed to be a writing (etc) tool for professionals. But writing professionals _need_ tools such as thesauri, dictionaries and the like, and we rely on them to be comprehensive. A thesaurus that gives me only a limited number of options is of very limited worth. Sometimes I need to use words that some people might find offensive.
This strikes me as an absurd move on the part of Microsoft; they're dabbling in an area where they have no expertise, making decisions for which they are unqualified. It's not like they would have got any criticism for leaving un-PC terms in the damn thesaurus. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

and ...?

[Mr_Silver]

So what? Americans have been editing the English language for centuries now! :)

Editing English

[bgarcia]

Microsoft Edits English

Just be glad that CmdrTaco doesn't have that sort of power.